1. travel
2. tourist destinations
3. australia and new zealand

THE IMPORTANCE OF
TEACHING AND LEARNING
ABORIGINAL LANGUAGES
AND CULTURES
The triangularity between language and
culture, educational engagement and
community cultural health and wellbeing
A literature based research study for the
New South Wales context
DR SHAYNE T. WILLIAMS
© 2011 Aboriginal Affairs & Dr Shayne T. Williams
Aboriginal Affairs
Office of Communities
New South Wales Department of Education and Communities
Level 13, Tower B
Centennial Plaza
280 Elizabeth St
Surry Hills NSW 2010
Ph: (02) 9219 0700
Email: [email protected]
This monograph reports on research commissioned by
Aboriginal Affairs, Office of Communities, New South
Wales Department of Education and Communities. The
views, opinions and conclusions expressed within this
report are entirely those of the author. These views,
opinions and conclusions should not be read as those of
the New South Wales Minister for Aboriginal Affairs or
those of Aboriginal Affairs.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Key Cultural Terminologies ................................................................... i
Author Profile .................................................................................... iii
Cultural Forward ................................................................................. iv
Acknowledgements .............................................................................. v
Executive Summary ............................................................................ vi
Principal Findings ............................................................................................. vii
Principal Recommendations for New South Wales ............................................... x
Chapter 1 - The Research Study ........................................................... 1
1.1 The Research in Theory ................................................................................. 1
1.2 The Research in Practice ............................................................................... 8
Chapter 2 - Language and Culture ...................................................... 14
2.1 The Dynamics of Language and Culture ...................................................... 14
2.2 Indigenous Ways of Knowing Language, Culture and Identity...................... 28
Chapter 3 – Language, Culture and Protection .................................... 48
3.1 The World’s Indigenous Languages and Cultures ........................................ 48
3.2 Protecting Indigenous Languages and Cultures ........................................... 59
Chapter 4 - Educational Engagement ................................................. 93
4.1 Positioning Indigenous Languages and Cultures within Education .............. 93
4.2 Advancing Indigenous Languages and Cultures through Education .......... 113
Chapter 5 – Cultural Health and Wellbeing ....................................... 134
5.1 Language, Culture and Community ........................................................... 134
5.2 Community and Education........................................................................ 141
Cumulative References Bibliography ................................................ 149
Key Cultural Terminologies
Aboriginal
In Australia the term ‘Aboriginal’ or ‘Aborigine’ was
originally applied by the colonising British as a nonculture specific generic descriptor of us the First Nations
peoples of the Australian continent. Under its coloniser
application the term ‘Aboriginal’ or ‘Aborigine’ portrayed us
as ‘natives’, but with an inferred meaning that defined us
as ‘primitive’ and/or ‘savage’. All four terms were used
interchangeably within everyday colonial dialogue.
In its contemporary Indigenous use ‘Aboriginal’ is an
emancipated identity founded on cultural pride. This
identity unifies all of the individual Indigenous cultural
nations of the Australian continent, with the exception of
the peoples of the Torres Strait, who maintain their own
unifying identity as Torres Strait Islanders. Under this
unifying context our unique status as First Nations
peoples is recognised and celebrated, our relatedness as
spirit peoples is affirmed, and our shared history as
Australia’s subjugated cultures asserted.
In this report the word Aboriginal is used as a culturally
collective proper noun for the First Peoples of New South
Wales.
Indigenous
As with the term ‘Aboriginal’ the word ‘Indigenous’ is
similarly a non-culture specific descriptor of us, but unlike
‘Aboriginal’ or ‘Aborigine’ has not carried within Australia
the same historically loaded undertone of ‘primitive’ or
‘savage’.
The contemporary popular use of ‘Indigenous’ emerged out
of global Indigenous social, political and academic
liberatory discourse and activism. Under this movement
‘Indigenous’ proactively champions our rights and status
as First Nations peoples, honours our being as spirit
peoples, and bonds us together in our struggle for cultural
autonomy.
In this report the word Indigenous is used as a culturally
collective proper noun for the First Peoples of the world and
of Australia, beyond New South Wales. In the Australian
context the word Indigenous is used as an expression of
respect for the spiritual ties that bind the Aboriginal peoples
of Australia and the Torres Strait Islander peoples of
Australia together as this nation’s First Peoples.
i
Languages &
Cultures
(plural)
Throughout this report the words language and culture
consistently appear in the plural form in order to assert,
emphasise and affirm the existence of our distinct cultural
nationhood’s. It is an ongoing common misconception that
because we use the collective proper nouns ‘Indigenous’
and ‘Aboriginal’ that we are all of one culture. The world
of Indigenous and Aboriginal being is diverse and
comprised of many individual cultural nationhood’s and
languages.
Country
‘Country’ is a term that we Indigenous peoples,
particularly here in Australia, use as a single word
expression to denote our spiritual inter-being with the
land, the sea, the sky, and all life and geologic forms
therein. Country, in its cultural context, infers far more
than just the physical life world, it simultaneously
acknowledges and respects the presence of the Spirit
Elders who created the physical life world and whose spirit
remains omnipresent within the physical life world. The
concept of ‘country’ therefore embodies our Indigenous
psycho-spiritual mind enmeshing culture, identity and
land together so powerfully that one is inseparable from
the other.
ii
Author Profile
It is a long standing Indigenous protocol, both nationally and internationally, that
Indigenous authors, as a matter of cultural respect, culturally identify themselves
to all prospective Indigenous readers. Accordingly, I offer the following profile of
myself as author of this report.
My name is Shayne Thomas Williams. I come from the former Aboriginal Reserve at
La Perouse, or as we say Lapa, which is located in the southeastern region of Sydney in NSW. My family have lived in this
community for generations, indeed my grandmother Emma-Jane
Foot was born on the beach at Lapa in 1884. My parents are
Thomas ‘Tom’ Henry Williams, OBE and Iris ‘Boronia’ Williams
(nee Callaghan). Through my paternal Grandmother Dolly
Williams (nee Anderson) I am Dharawal (Sydney and the
Illawarra region NSW). Through my paternal Grandfather Thomas
Henry Williams I am Gomilaroi (North-West region NSW). I am
similarly Dharawal through my maternal Grandmother EmmaJane Callaghan (nee Foot) and Dhungutti (Mid North Coast,
NSW) through my maternal Grandfather Athol Callaghan. I also maintain a strong
cultural affiliation with the Ngurelban/Bangerang peoples (Mid-North region VIC)
through my paternal Great Grandfather Hughie Anderson.
In 1989 I completed a Certificate of Business Studies at Tranby Aboriginal
Cooperative College in Glebe (NSW). After finishing my studies at Tranby I
undertook tertiary study at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS). Through
UTS I gained an Associate Diploma in Adult Education (1993), a Bachelor of
Education in Adult Education (1996) and a Masters of Education in Adult
Education (1999). I then took a break from study for a few years before returning to
complete my doctoral thesis in Indigenous education. This led to me being
conferred as a Doctor of Philosophy in October 2007 by Deakin University (VIC).
Throughout my career I have consciously chosen to refer to myself as an
Indigenous academic. I have done so in order to proudly affirm my sense of
spiritual kinship with all Indigenous peoples, both nationally and internationally,
as we are all allies in our struggle for cultural liberation. As an Indigenous
academic, and as a strong Aboriginal community person, I am wholly committed to
the core principles of Indigenous empowerment, self-determination and cultural
sovereignty. As such, I openly assert our right to academic autonomy over our
ontology’s, our epistemology’s and our axiology’s, which underpin, contextualise
and spiritualise our distinct systems of knowledge. I see this as fundamental to the
emancipation of our cultural curricula and our cultural pedagogies for the cultural
education of our young people. I see that this is the cultural business of all of us.
iii
Cultural Forward
It was with great pleasure and cultural humility that I accepted Aboriginal Affairs
invitation to undertake, as the principal researcher, the ‘Aboriginal Languages
Project’ which is the basis of this report. As I intimated in my profile, as an
Indigenous academic I have spent the vast majority of my professional career
working to assert and advance Indigenous cultural teaching and learning. That is
why I welcomed wholeheartedly the opportunity that this project represented. I saw
this project as a meaningful avenue for examining, and critically evaluating, our
long standing contention that our educational engagement and our health and
well-being cannot be separated from our need and fundamental human right to
nourish our Indigenous cultural identities through revival of our spiritual interbeing with our languages and our cultural praxis.
As an Indigenous academic and community person I cannot, or for that matter will
not, write of or speak to any concern within the broad spectrum of Indigenous
affairs as though I were a neutral observer. Because of this I have always written in
a style that is not stridently academic in the conventional Western sense. In
reading this report you will notice that I write in the first person as though I were
talking directly with you the reader. You will also notice that I favour the use of
collective pronouns. In the case of my predilection for writing as though I were
talking, this is a deliberate action on my behalf because this style enables me to
invoke the spiritual energy of our cultural ways of ‘yarning’ knowing. As to my use
of collective pronouns, it is my way of expressing cultural synergy with the ‘topic’ at
hand. I am, we are, the ‘topic’, so I make no separation between myself as author
and myself as ‘subject’.
My yarning is unapologetically Indigenous in outlook, and aimed at contributing to
the cultural business of Indigenous academia, not Westcentric study of us. For that
reason I have consciously chosen to shape the scope and direction of this report in
a way that sits more closely within the cultural framework of my Indigenous
epistemology. Commensurate with this epistemology, our cultural way of ‘yarning’
knowing can be thought of as both a cultural mode for creating knowing and a
cultural pedagogy for teaching and learning knowing. Both forms of yarning are
premised on the broader cultural paradigm of ‘storying’, which founds the start
point of all knowing within the spirit place of Indigenous ontology. Knowing then
grows forward from this place through the creation of holistic story that merges all
elements and energies of knowing together as a cultural conduit for cultural
edification.
I am, of course, fully aware that my report may be considered unduly detailed
particularly with regard to Chapters 2 and 3. Whilst I appreciate that in a Western
sense these chapters could be concertinaed together, I believe that if we are truly
serious about closing the gap then our Indigenous story needs to be told
comprehensively. For that reason I have decided upon yarning in detail i. the
concepts of language and culture, ii. who we are, and iii. the imperative to protect
our languages and cultures through processes such as revitalisation and
reclamation. I have deemed this yarning pivotal to the cultural context of this
study. To shrink this yarning would work against the cultural principles of our
ways of storying and fail to give full voice to our peoples, our cultures, our realities
and our futures. For those requiring a shorter ‘read’ please consult the Executive
Summary located at the beginning of this report.
iv
Acknowledgements
I extend my sincere gratitude to the Hon. Victor Dominello, NSW Minister for
Aboriginal Affairs for instigating the commissioning of the ‘Aboriginal Languages
Project’. In commissioning this project you have demonstrated to us the Aboriginal
peoples of NSW that you are committed to finding practical ways for closing the gap
between Indigenous and non-Indigenous disparity. At a personal level I felt both
uplifted and positive about your willingness to look into the possibilities that the
teaching and learning of our languages and cultures present for us in terms of
moving us forward towards parity.
I extend my sincere thanks to James Christian, Chief Executive, Aboriginal Affairs
and Jason Ardler, Executive Director, Aboriginal Affairs. The unwavering support
you have extended to me whilst undertaking this project has been very much
appreciated – thank you my brothers for standing strong for our peoples.
I also extend a very sincere thank you to all the staff of Aboriginal Affairs whom I
have had the privilege to get to know and work with. Many of you have gone out of
your way to provide me with advice, cultural support and practical assistance. For
all that you have done I am truly grateful.
v
Executive Summary
On the 15th of August 2011 work
commenced on the ‘Aboriginal Languages
Project’, an initiative instigated by the
New South Wales Minister for Aboriginal
Affairs and commissioned by Aboriginal
Affairs, Office of Communities, New
South Wales Department of Education
and Communities.
The backdrop behind the imperative to
protect our Indigenous languages and
cultures was also examined closely so as
to advance greater understanding of the
highly convoluted nature of teaching and
learning our Aboriginal languages and
cultures within the challenging context of
diminished language and cultural praxis.
The key objective behind the ‘Aboriginal
Languages Project’ was to uncover
theoretical, informal and research based
evidence within international, national
and local [New South Wales] literature
explicating the triangularity between the
teaching and learning of our Indigenous
languages and cultures, our educational
engagement, participation and scholastic
success, and our community health and
wellbeing.
The relationship between education and
community health and wellbeing was
found to be so inter-reliant that it
necessitates the strengthening agency of
a holistic cultural conduit between home,
community and educational frameworks.
With regard to the character of the
available literature it is astonishingly
clear that we Indigenous peoples
internationally, nationally and locally
[New South Wales] have long constituted
a bountiful ‘subject’ for Western
academia. The Western fascination with
studying us has continued unabated
since colonisation, resulting in the
publication of an extraordinarily
corpulent body of material upon us.
The purpose behind this objective was to
synthesise and explain this body of
evidence with the expectation of revealing
improved directions for the teaching and
learning of our Aboriginal languages and
cultures within New South Wales, as a
key strategy for ‘closing the gap’ between
us and non-Aboriginal educational
attainment levels, especially with regard
to literacy outcomes, and the cultural
vitality of ourselves and our
communities.
It is all the more surprising, given the
vigorous nature of the study of us, that
there is a notable significant dearth of
Western academically authoritative
empirical research into the linkages
between our linguistic and cultural
praxis and our scholastic performance
within the Western mainstream context.
It is similarly surprising, given the
publicised urgency of the dire state of
our health status, that our psychosocial
cultural health and wellbeing has not
been more comprehensively addressed.
Given that the ‘Aboriginal Languages
Project’ was undertaken as an
Indigenous centred initiative the
literature was analysed and interpreted
from the vantage point of our Indigenous
cultural worldview. In order to facilitate
meaningful understanding of our
worldview it was important that the key
concepts of language and culture were
explored, so that the intrinsic differences
between our perspective and nonIndigenous perspective were made plain.
The most remarkable characteristic
found with regard to the available
literature however, is the extent to which
our Indigenous academic publication
remains numerically overshadowed by
the sheer weight of Western
interpretation of us.
These differences in perspective were
particularly telling with regard to the
location of best practice culturally
responsive paradigms in education and
community health and wellbeing.
vi
Principal Findings
Language and Culture









Language is equally the medium of
communication and the medium of
cognition.
Language and culture are mutually
inclusive and therefore not readily
considerable in isolation of one
another.
Language is recognisably the core
repository of human knowledge.
Indigenous languages and cultures
are immutably spiritual, being
embedded within Indigenous
ontology’s of country, thus
determining distinct Indigenous
epistemologies and axiologies.

Indigenous languages are
recognisably uniquely rich in
ecological knowledge.
Indigenous cultural identity remains
enmeshed within language even
when mother tongue is no longer
spoken.
Indigenous language continues to
hold psychological primacy in
Indigenous identity as the spiritual
conduit between identity and
country.
Where Indigenous languages have
been severely diminished or no
longer spoken Aboriginal English has
a strong linguistic role in positively
reinforcing Indigenous identity.




The contrast between the
revitalisation of a language and the
reclamation of a language is
significant demarcating distinct
strategic parameters for language
and culture revival, including
education.

There is vigorous localised language
revival taking place within New
South Wales, but it is not systematic
across the State.
The Muurrbay Aboriginal Language
and Culture Co-operative stands out
within New South Wales as a positive
exemplar for creating functional
community-school engagement.


Language, Culture and Protection
The United Nations Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is
consistently cited within academic
discourse as defining a mandate for
Nation States to secure and
guarantee through legal ordinance
the protection and revival of
Indigenous languages and cultures.
Indigenous language and culture
protection policy is unable to
guarantee perpetuity in the
protection and revival of Indigenous
languages and cultures.
Indigenous tensions over linguistic
veracity in language revitalisation
and reclamation significantly
convolute the Indigenous language
revival process.
Educational Engagement
Globally Indigenous languages are
critically endangered.
Australia’s Indigenous languages are
among the world’s most critically
endangered.
There is grave academic concern that
the ecological knowledge held within
Indigenous languages will be lost to
the world’s bank of human scientific
data.
vii

Schooling is generally accepted as
important to Indigenous language
and culture maintenance and revival.

There is Indigenous discord over how
much language and culture should
be injected into State mainstream
education programming.
State mainstream education systems are
seen as having a reconciliation and
human rights obligation to be proactive
in supporting Indigenous language and
culture maintenance and revival.

Aboriginal language and culture
education programmes within the
State mainstream education system
of New South Wales are not
widespread.


Many Aboriginal students within
New South Wales are not assured
access to Indigenous language and
culture learning beyond Aboriginal
Studies.

The issue of on country versus off
country teaching remains highly
contentious within Indigenous
cultural politics and this has a direct
impact on limiting wider distribution
of Indigenous language and culture
learning.







Indigenous medium immersion,
particularly in the early years,
indicates best practice for
establishing Indigenous language
and culture maintenance and revival
within a formal education context.
Indigenous medium immersion
education, particularly in the early
learning years, evidences reversal of
language shift away from mother
tongue.
There is no convincing evidence to
suggest that Indigenous medium
education impedes the acquisition of
Standard Australian English literacy
skills.
Community Health and Wellbeing
There is evidence to suggest that
Indigenous students learning
through Indigenous medium
immersion acquire academic
competencies at a standard equal to
and better than students studying
through English medium education.

Indigenous health and wellbeing is
strongly associated with spiritual
health and wellbeing.

There is a tangible interconnection
between spiritual health and
wellbeing and a broader sense of
individual and community cultural
health and wellbeing.
There is a tangible interconnection
between Indigenous self-esteem and
cultural praxis which includes
language competency.
It can be concluded on the basis of
Indigenous interpretation of existing
literature that even language
awareness can strengthen cultural
pride in identity and therefore
cultural health and wellbeing.

Indigenous language and culture
education programmes not
underpinned by immersion
principles are less likely to move
beyond language awareness.
The most dominant impediment in
Indigenous language and culture
education is a lack of qualified
teachers who are both proficient in
language and fluent in cultural
praxis.

The other major dominant
impediment in Indigenous language
and culture education is the paucity
of quality culturally germane
teaching resources.

International research indicates that
Indigenous language competency
influences the reduction of
Indigenous youth suicide and selfharm.

National commentary indicates that
the risk of premature loss of older
language and culture knowledge
holders can force accelerated uptake
of language and culture knowledge
upon oncoming generations, which
can then in turn precipitate
psychological ill-health.
A lack of continuity between early
childhood, primary and secondary
programming in Indigenous language
and culture revitalisation education
can severely disrupt or otherwise
bring to a halt the re-acquisition and
re-uptake of mother tongue.
viii

The status of Indigenous home
language and culture has a direct
impact on the degree to which a
child will uptake Indigenous
language and culture.

Indigenous language and culture
‘nests’ are identified within the
literature as vital for bringing older
language and cultural knowledge
holders together with the very young.

The robustness of Indigenous
language and culture maintenance
and revival is significantly dependent
upon the establishment and
maintenance of a strong homeschool-community interface.

There is a significant need to
establish informal and formal adult
community education initiatives
aimed at Indigenous language and
culture maintenance and revival.
ix
Principal Recommendations for New South Wales
Community Health and Wellbeing

vi. That the Aboriginal Language and
Culture Collectives instigate and
oversee the provision of informal nonaward community based adult
language and culture education
programmes.
vii. That the Aboriginal Language and
Culture Collectives work in close
partnership with the State Library of
New South Wales and the Australian
Institute of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Studies [AIATSIS] to
develop an up-to-date State wide
languages database for the purpose of
supporting Aboriginal communities
undertaking language reclamation
across New South Wales and the
future protection of vital Aboriginal
language data.
It is recommended that the New
South Wales Government proceed
with its current initiative to establish
a network of regional Aboriginal
Language Centres with consideration
to extending their structure, scope
and operation to incorporate the
following sub-recommendations:i. That these centres become Aboriginal
Language and Culture Collectives,
thereby incorporating within their brief
Aboriginal cultural development
alongside Aboriginal language
development for the benefit of the
cultural health and wellbeing of the
Aboriginal peoples of New South Wales.
ii. That the Aboriginal Language and
Culture Collectives be given
responsibility to establish and support
local community Aboriginal language
and culture ‘nests’ with the aim of
strengthening home-school-community
connectivity.
iii. That these localised language and
culture ‘nests’ be organised as a
mechanism for facilitating the bringing
together of older knowledge holders of
language and culture with upcoming
generations so that a stronger
language and culture foundation can
be developed in order to promote the
prospect of a new generation of
Aboriginal knowledge holders.
iv. That the Aboriginal Language and
Culture Collectives incorporate within
their jurisdiction a mechanism for
conducting professionally mediated
cultural problem solving clinics in
order to facilitate the workshopping of
cultural issues related to Aboriginal
language revitalisation and
reclamation.
v. That these clinics offer formal
professional mediation services for
situations where cultural impasse
between community members
stalwarts Aboriginal language
revitalisation and reclamation
Education

It is recommended that the NSW
Aboriginal Education Consultative
Group [AECG] in partnership with
the NSW Department of Education
and Communities conjointly seek to
address the culturally divisive and
spiritually difficult polemic of on
country versus off country
Indigenous language and culture
teaching on the basis of the following
sub-recommendations:i. That the spiritual practicalities of
facilitating the establishment of
fluent Indigenous/Aboriginal
language education programmes
within the New South Wales
mainstream education system be
investigated.
ii. That this investigation consider the
fundamental right of every
Aboriginal child within New South
Wales to be provided with an option
to undertake learning in an
Indigenous/Aboriginal language
within the State’s mainstream
schooling system.
x
ii. That the possibility of conducting
Aboriginal student only language
and culture classes be explored as a
means of addressing ‘shame’.
iii. That this investigation also consider
the reconciliation benefit of offering
all children the opportunity to
undertake learning in an
Indigenous/Aboriginal language
within the State’s mainstream
schooling system.

iv. That the concept of teaching ‘from
country’ currently modelled by
Charles Darwin University be
considered as a way forward for
transitioning the pedagogical
importance of teaching on country
into a classroom context.
i. Under the auspice of the proposed
Aboriginal Language and Culture
Collectives establish an adult
education teaching skills
development programme for suitable
willing Aboriginal language and
cultural knowledge holders.
ii. Support this teaching skills
programme with a training stipend
and a graduate cultural teacher
payment structure.
v. That the benefit of conducting a
local language awareness
programme alongside a fluent
Indigenous/Aboriginal language
programme be considered.


It is recommended that the New
South Wales Government seek to
urgently address the serious lack of
qualified culturally knowledged
teachers for school and community
education programmes through the
New South Wales Department of
Education and Communities with
the following sub-recommendations
in mind:-
It is recommended that the New
South Wales Department of
Education and Communities
undertake a formal pilot study into
the pedagogical principles of
Indigenous/Aboriginal medium
programming with a view to
implementing whole day immersion
language and culture programmes in
an effort to help redress the critical
endangerment of Aboriginal
languages and cultures within New
South Wales.
It is recommended that the New
South Wales Government seek to
address through the New South
Wales Department of Education and
Communities the serious polemic of
scholastic measurement of
Aboriginal students undertaking
Indigenous/Aboriginal language and
culture learning with the following
sub-recommendations in mind:-

i. That Aboriginal community anxiety
about the academic ‘shaming’ of
Aboriginal children, learning in an
Indigenous/Aboriginal language and
culture programme, through
competitive assessment be explored
with an understanding that Western
testing methods can seriously
disadvantage Aboriginal children
seeking to learn for the benefit of
the cultural health of their identity.
x
It is recommended that the New
South Wales Government seek to
develop a specific Aboriginal
languages and cultures educational
resource fund to be administered by
the New South Wales Department of
Education and Communities to
urgently address the significant
paucity of up-to-date effective
Aboriginal learning materials to
support Aboriginal language and
culture learning programmes,
Aboriginal Studies programmes and
the effective injection of Aboriginal
perspectives across the Key Learning
Areas.
Policy and Legislation
Research and Strategic Planning


In response to Australia’s Federal
endorsement of the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples it is
recommended that the New South
Wales Government seek to secure
and guarantee the status, protection
and revival of Aboriginal languages
and cultures within New South
Wales through the enactment of legal
ordinance in respect to the following
observations:
i. Best human rights practice
suggests the inception of a distinct
Aboriginal Languages and Cultures
Act.
ii. An alternative to exclusive
Aboriginal languages and cultures
legislation would be formal explicit
embedment of Aboriginal linguistic
status and protection within
already existing cultural protection
ordinance or annexation under the
Aboriginal Land Rights Act on the
basis of Aboriginal language
spiritual extrapolation within
country.
iii. That formal legal ordinance of this
nature would better enable the
facilitation of an Indigenous
Language and Culture Statutory
Authority with full responsibility to
administer all cultural, social and
educational matters to do with
Aboriginal language and culture
protection and advancement.
iv. That formal legal ordinance would
ameliorate the tenuous nature of
non-enforceable policy.

In response to the extreme dearth in
Indigenous led research into
Indigenous cultural issues and in
the spirit of enabling Indigenous selfdetermination it is recommended
that the New South Wales
Government fund the commissioning
of Indigenous led research, under
the auspice of the New South Wales
Department of Education and
Communities, in accordance with
the following sub-recommendations:i. That an Aboriginal led qualitative
research investigation be
undertaken to seek to establish
Aboriginal community needs and
aspirations for the future direction
of language and culture protection,
maintenance and revival.
ii. That an Aboriginal led quantitative
research investigation be
undertaken in order to update
existing knowledge of the exact
State of the Aboriginal languages
and cultures of New South Wales.
iii. That the results of these research
studies be used as the basis for the
development of a strategic
management plan, including vision
statement, for the proposed
Aboriginal Language and Culture
Collectives, or any future Statutory
Authority to be established.
iv. That an urgent immediate
Aboriginal led full evaluation of all
existing Aboriginal language
programmes currently offered
through the States mainstream
education system, and participating
private and independent schools, be
carried out in order to uncover the
effectiveness of these programmes,
particularly with regard to
Aboriginal student scholastic
attainment and Aboriginal uptake of
language and culture.
It is recommended that the existing
New South Wales Aboriginal
Languages Policy be amended to
envelop the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, particularly with
regard to Article 13.1 and Article
14.1, and that the concept of
language awareness be more
expressly written into the policy.
xi
“This is a race against the clock, and we’re in the 59th minute of the last hour”
Ryan Wilson Oglala Lakota Nation
National Indian Education Association
Chapter 1 - The Research Study
1.1 The Research in Theory
On the 27th of May, 2011 the New South Wales Minister for Aboriginal
Affairs, the Honourable Victor Dominello MP announced in a press release
that “the NSW Government will investigate how to create further Aboriginal
cultural and linguistic opportunities as a key way of closing the gap”.1 The
Minister further stated that “this investigation will include thorough analysis
of existing best practice and various trends in promoting indigenous
language and culture”.2 On the basis of this public announcement
Aboriginal Affairs, Office of Communities, the NSW Department of Education
and Communities undertook the commissioning of a literature based
research study with the aim of exploring the linkages between Aboriginal
languages and cultures, Aboriginal community wellbeing and Aboriginal
engagement with the education system.
Minister Dominello poignantly noted in his May press release that he
believes that “...through culture and language empowerment, much can be
achieved in reducing the gap in Aboriginal disadvantage”.3 This welcome and
constructive conviction essentially informed the tone and strategic purpose
behind the briefing document that founded this study. As is the case with all
such commissioned studies, a formal briefing document needs to be
established in order to determine a set objective for the research, in this
case commensurate with Minister Dominello’s announcement, and also to
circumscribe the research within specific terms of reference. These terms of
reference, which for this project were articulated under the title ‘Aboriginal
Languages Project’, provide for the researcher a set of parameters that
effectively enclose the research within investigative boundaries that protect
the research from veering into un-commissioned areas of inquiry.
V Dominello, ‘Minister announces investigation into Aboriginal cultural and linguistic opportunities’,
Media Release, Parliament House, NSW, 27 May 2011.
2 ibid.
3 ibid.
1
[1]
The stated research objective for this particular project, as set down within
the briefing document, was to:
Provide an understanding of the connection between teaching Aboriginal
languages and culture and benefits to community wellbeing and engagement
with the education system4
With this in mind the contracted researcher was instructed to:
Compile existing evidence, synthesise and interpret that evidence for the NSW
context, and make recommendations with regard to this objective 5
The particular terms of reference for this project specifically directed that
the research should constitute:
A desk-top survey of existing and up-coming information locally, nationally and
internationally on linkages between Indigenous language use and learning of
culture, and benefits for the individual and community wellbeing, participation
in cultural activities, engagement in learning and other activities and
opportunities6
Further, the terms of references were explicit in reinforcing and reiterating
that the researcher should specifically:
Find out the links between studying Aboriginal language and culture and
increased student participation in school life, as well [as] increased parental
engagement with the school system7,
And as a result recommend:
Courses of action to maximise the benefits of expanding language and culture
learning in NSW, based on the available evidence 8
To that end the terms of reference determined that the researcher should
produce a final report that:
Synthesises, interprets and explains the evidence
Relates the evidence to the NSW situation 9
In that regard it was stated categorically that the analysis of evidence found
within the literature should make plain:
The quality of the evidence available...
Any evidence about differences in outcomes related to:
whether an Indigenous language is a person’s first or subsequent language
a person’s fluency in the Indigenous language
how that person acquired their Indigenous language
Any significant gaps in information which limit the ability to make
recommendations
Any factors which may limit expanding language use and learning in NSW 10
As the resident Indigenous academic privileged with the opportunity to
undertake the literature based research study revealed herein, my first
instinct was to cement within my mind’s eye the knowledge place of the
research and correspondingly my analytic/interpretative lens. Now it may
Aboriginal Affairs, ‘Aboriginal Languages Project Brief’, New South Wales Department of Education
and Communities, Office of Communities, Aboriginal Affairs, Sydney NSW, 2011, p.1.
5 ibid.
6 ibid., p.2.
7 ibid.
8 ibid.
9 ibid.
10 ibid.
4
[2]
well seem strange to begin a study of this nature by thinking about
establishing an analytic/interpretive lens founded on and within a specific
knowledge place. After all, it can be argued that the project brief as detailed
above merely required the commissioned researcher to undertake a straight
forward unambiguous literature review. In reading the project brief and in
thinking about its prescribed field of study I reasoned otherwise. I did so
because I saw that the work of reading, analysing and interpreting literature
may not be entirely objective, just as knowledge itself may not be entirely
objective.
You see, we are all socio-cultural beings. Each of us cognises and
rationalises from within an intellectual, psychological and sociological
context that is culturally informed. We all filter information through the
worldview that shapes our socio-cultural lens or outlook, even researchers.
On this basis it can be legitimately claimed that qualitative research in
particular, even interpretive research based on existing literature, may be
subject to a researcher’s cultural predisposition. We need to bear in mind
here that qualitative research is principally concerned with delving deeply
into, and explaining, human social and cultural phenomena. As Indigenous
Botswanan academic Associate Professor Bagele Chilisa put it in her
recently published textbook ‘Indigenous research methodologies’,
“qualitative research is characterised by multiple realities and therefore
multiple truths”.11
Chilisa tellingly corroborated that:
The researcher’s perceptions of reality, what counts as knowledge and values,
have an impact on the way research questions are conceived, research
approaches, data-gathering instruments, analysis, and interpretation and
dissemination of research findings.12
The real possibility that a ‘researcher’s perceptions of reality’ impacts the
interpretative trajectory of research places me, as a researcher, in a position
of ethical obligation, wherein I am required to disclose up front my personal
socio-cultural outlook, and indeed explain how this outlook characterises
the reality of my own analytic/interpretive lens, and also how it situates my
research in terms of systems of knowledge and knowledge production. This
is entirely necessary in order to combat downplay of my research
interpretations on the basis of my cultural predisposition or subjectivity as
an Indigenous researcher.
In thinking about research, it an can be seen that research is essentially the
business of either generating new previously unknown knowledge, or
locating new understanding through re-examination and re-interpretation of
11
12
B Chilisa, Indigenous Research Methodologies, Sage, Los Angeles, 2012, p. 165.
ibid., p. 2.
[3]
existing knowledge. Whatever a research enterprise is premised upon
achieving in this regard, it always begins from a fixed starting point. This
starting point is typically established through the recognition of a problem
or the conception of an idea and the concomitant postulation of a singular
research question, a set of research questions or a research hypothesis.
However research is initiated one thing is patently clear; research is
endowed with an intellectual identity, and it is this identity that locates the
research within an academic realm and industry of a given knowledge place
or system of knowledge.
The research enterprise that is the subject of this report is no different. It
too is situated within a particular knowledge system. There is, of course, a
tendency among those who remain unconvinced by non-positivist
postcolonial and emancipatory research discourse to think of knowledge,
and therefore knowledge production through research, as an essentially
neutral and objective enterprise that contributes to one holistic body of
knowledge. That however, is not quite the case. Just as researchers can be
seen to possess socially and culturally determined notions of reality and
truth, so too can knowledge, especially knowledge typically ascribed to the
multiple disciplines related to social science. Knowledge is not necessarily a
singular entity, it can be socially and culturally placed, and it can
promulgate a particular relative or subjective way of seeing the world or
worldview.
Indigenous Māori academic Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith is a leading
figure in Indigenous emancipatory research discourse. Through her critical
examination of knowledge and knowledge systems Smith exposed the
essentially hegemonic nature of the Western system of knowledge. Smith
duly noted in her seminal volume ‘Decolonising methodologies’ that “the
globalisation of knowledge and Western culture constantly reaffirms the
West’s view of itself as the centre of legitimate knowledge, the arbiter of what
counts as knowledge and the source of ‘civilized’ knowledge”.13 We
Indigenous peoples vigorously counterclaim this view as intellectually
repressive. We assert the legitimacy of own Indigenous systems of
knowledge, which contrary to popular belief are not statically centred within
a traditional/tribal time warp; they are contemporary, dynamic and
constantly evolving.
To explain this further, I want to turn your attention to the distinction
Chilisa made between Western systems of knowledge and non-Western
systems of knowledge. This distinction recognises that one system of
LT Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, Zed Books, London, 1999,
p.63.
13
[4]
knowledge “...is Euro-Western and indigenous to the Western academy and
its institutions; the other knowledge is non-Western and peripheral, and it
operates with the values and belief systems of the historically colonized”.14
What we can learn from this is that Indigenous systems of knowledge tend
to be located beyond the fringe of customary Westcentric academic thinking
and research. This has had the flow on effect of positioning Indigenous
systems of knowledge as either insignificant or nonexistent. The reality
though is that our Indigenous systems of knowledge do exist, and we can
see from Chilisa that our voice is that of the historically oppressed.
That said, it is troubling to me that Indigenous academia tends to be
exclusively associated with speaking back against the omnipotence of
Westcentric knowing. Whilst this is an integral part of what Indigenous
academia is, Indigenous academia is far more; it is equally speaking forward
through the spirit reality of our Indigenous ontology’s. The research story
presented hereunder may well speak back, from time to time, against
Western supremacy, but more significantly it will speak forward through the
spiritual synergy of our collective Indigenous voice. In short, this research
study will occupy a place within our Indigenous systems of knowledge and
transmit our Indigenous ways of knowing, doing and being. This research
therefore unequivocally carries an intellectual identity as a constituent of
the industry of Indigenous academia, and defines very particularly my own
analytic/interpretive lens as an instrument of Indigenous worldview.
Actually, whenever you engage with Indigenous knowing by picking up and
reading an Indigenous voiced book, glancing over an Indigenous voiced
article or see or hear Indigenous commentary about language and culture
you will be made aware of the existence of one of our most pressing
concerns – a concern to ensure the continuity of our languages and by
association the cultures to which these languages belong. This concern is
global. It is broadcast loudly and clearly through the passionate, anxious,
oftentimes fearful, but increasingly optimistic, voice of our academic
colloquia and literature. Interestingly, it is actually a concern that can also
be found in the sentiment of international, national and local debate, and in
the commentary of Western academia. Beyond this though, and more
determinedly, it is powerfully voiced through the spiritual psyche of
Indigenous community cultural dialogue.
Sitting behind the psyche of Indigenous community cultural dialogue is a
significant and arguably officious history. Across the globe we Indigenous
people have lived through and survived imperialism and colonialism. In
14
B Chilisa, op.cit., p.4.
[5]
every continent Indigenous peoples can attest to this, certainly Smith has
affirmed that “imperialism frames the indigenous experience. It is part of our
story, our version of modernity”.15 We know firsthand what it is to have our
once autonomous lands systematically claimed and occupied by another
culture. We know too the smothering consequence of a colonising culture
upon our own. In Australia, we Aboriginal peoples, who once owned and
occupied what became the state of New South Wales, were the first to feel
the full uncompromising impact of British cultural imposition and among
the first to suffer language loss and culture loss.
There is much to be read and indeed heard on the matter of Indigenous
language loss and culture loss, but perhaps one the most compelling single
statements I’ve read in recent times came from Oglala Lakota President of
the National Indian Education Association, Ryan Wilson who simply stated
that “this is a race against the clock and we’re in the 59th minute of the last
hour”.16 This statement of itself may well sound panicked, but it is not. It is
a strong, sobering Indigenous voiced observation which imparts to this
research a defining context from within the spirit place of our Indigenous
knowing. Certainly, the intensity and urgency of Wilson’s meaning is
undeniably confirmed when juxtaposed against the unassailable reality that:
Of the some 7,000 languages today, it is estimated that more than 4,000
are spoken by indigenous peoples. Language specialists predict that up to
90 per cent of the world’s languages are likely to become extinct or
threatened with extinction by the end of the century. This statistic
illustrates the grave danger faced by indigenous peoples.17
When you further consider the strength behind United Nations author, and
Indigenous Maasai expert on Indigenous affairs, Dr Naomi Kipuri’s
statement “Indigenous languages have been dying, not only as a result of
unintended consequences of colonization and globalization, but also
because of deliberate assimilation policies that sought to deny indigenous
peoples their own identities and cultures”18 then you come face to face with
the catastrophic nature of what we Indigenous peoples contend with, and
what we absolutely dread in terms of the loss of our languages and our
cultures. In the face of such alarming data and statement it would be quite
easy, especially for those with a non-Indigenous ‘eye’, to conclude that we
Indigenous peoples may as well give up because all seems so utterly and
irredeemably hopeless, but is this a legitimate conclusion?
LT Smith, op. cit., p. 19.
D Frosch, ‘Its native tongue facing extinction, Arapaho tribe teaches the young’, New York Times, 17
October 2008, <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/us/17arapaho.html?ref=indiansamerican>
17 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples,
United Nations, New York, 2009, p.1,
<http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/SOWIP_web.pdf>
18 ibid., p. 58.
15
16
[6]
In nations such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States of
America, but also in many other nations as well, the once dominating and
antagonistic relations between colonising populations and Indigenous
peoples have been challenged, and in many instances are now in a process
of change. Reconciliation, as a socio-cultural and socio-political ideal
premised on healing and egalitarianism, has become more than a popular
catch cry, it has become a corridor of assertion in Indigenous academia and
community dialogue alike, and as such a genuine force in inter-cultural
nationhood relationships. These relationships centre on the recognition of
fundamental Indigenous human rights; human rights that acknowledge our
Indigenous entitlement to save, nurture and continue our first languages
and cultures, and therefore our cultural identity.
The status of Indigenous language loss and culture loss in concert with
Indigenous human rights will be discussed with far greater explanation in
the body of this report. Both matters are introduced here because they
provide the principal gateway into the socio-political site of the Indigenous
research contained herein. This is because this research extends out from
the guiding principles of reconciliation by contributing to the advancement
of our fundamental Indigenous human right to speak our Indigenous
languages and live our Indigenous cultures. It begins from the point of
knowing that conscious government effort is being made to redress
Indigenous social, cultural and political inequity through recognition and
acceptance of the positive value of our Indigenous languages and cultures to
the Australian nation.
The reconciliation and human rights gateway into this research thus aligns
this research directly with the moral ethos of key Indigenous human rights
as articulated in the ‘United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples’.19 These rights are:
Article 8.1
Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced
assimilation or destruction of their culture.
Article 13.1
Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalise, use, develop and transmit to
future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies,
writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for
communities, places and persons.
Article 14.3
States shall, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, take effective measures, in
order for indigenous individuals, particularly children, including those living
outside their communities, to have access, when possible, to an education in
their own culture and provided in their own language.
United Nations, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Adopted by the
United Nations Generally Assembly as Resolution 61/295, 13 September 2007,
<http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html>
19
[7]
Article 15.1
Indigenous peoples have the right to the dignity and diversity of their cultures,
traditions, histories and aspirations which shall be appropriately reflected in
education and public information.20
I must also reveal, in the interests of researcher integrity, that I have a
strong personal conviction centred on Article 14.1 which states:
Indigenous peoples have a right to establish and control their educational
systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a
manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning 21
There has been much debate in both Indigenous and non-Indigenous circles
alike regarding the myriad of issues that this right provokes. Whether you
are an advocate of Indigenous independent education as I am, or not, the
prospect that a causal link might be found between the teaching and
learning of Indigenous languages and cultures, Indigenous community
health and wellbeing and Indigenous educational participation means that
the socio-political site of this research inevitably encapsulates consideration
of our Indigenous right to cultural empowerment through cultural and
educational self-determination.
1.2 The Research in Practice
There are essentially two fundamental aspects to research – theory and
practice. The theoretical framework of this research study has already been
explained to you in terms of knowledge place, researcher lens and sociopolitical site. These pre-positional underpinnings embed this study within
an Indigenous liberationist methodology or paradigm. Indigenous
liberationist theory and philosophy not only secures the learned authority of
the spirit logic of Indigenous ontology, epistemology and axiology, it
functions as an apparatus for Indigenous academic emancipation and
Indigenous socio-cultural, socio-political and socio-economic selfdetermined empowerment. In bouncing off Chilisa’s recognition of
methodology as a “convergence” between a “theoretical framework”,
“assumptions about the nature of reality and knowledge” and “value
systems & ethical principles”22 it can be seen that this research upholds
Indigenous assumptions of knowing and Indigenous valuing of collectivism,
spiritualism and autonomy.
Of course theory is all well and good, but the practice of research is
altogether another matter. First of all, a genuine conduit between theory and
practice needs to be successfully established. In the past I have done this by
looking at how the underscoring values inbuilt in the methodology of
research suggest criterion for praxis, and how this criterion can be aligned
20
21
22
ibid.
ibid.
B Chilisa, op.cit., p.163.
[8]
with the methods of research.23 However, this is not necessarily either a
straightforward or easy process because there is always an inherent risk
that theory will be let down by practice. In other words, if the practice of
research doesn’t dovetail with the ideals of theory, then theory becomes
hollow rhetoric. Of course, the idea that discussion about method is even
necessary with literature based research needs to be counterbalanced by
recognition that a practical approach to reading, analysing and interpreting
literature needs to be located, and it has to be an approach that works with
the standpoint of whatever methodology is being employed.
So, how can practice become a medium of theory? In transitioning this
particular research study from theory to practice I kept in mind that the
briefing document itself set for me a fairly general primary objective and
relatively broad terms of reference. Given this, it seemed to me that it would
be logical to apply the strategy of informally establishing for myself an
operational research hypothesis and to extrapolate this to a series of key
guiding questions as a practical platform for the research. When I first read
the briefing document’s preamble, two sentences immediately stood out for
me. I found both sentences compelling because I saw that they contained
within them the essence of a practical research hypothesis that I could set,
then apply as a useful tool or yardstick for testing and measuring the
content, context and messaging subtext of existing literature on the teaching
and learning of Indigenous languages and cultures.
The first sentence that struck me simply stated that the “revival and renewal
of Aboriginal languages is happening in NSW within Aboriginal
communities, in schools and other education institutions, and in the
broader community”.24 In the second sentence it was observed that there is
some research and colloquial evidence to suggest “...that Aboriginal
language teaching in schools has increased attendance rates amongst
Aboriginal students and has been linked with increased student
performance, particularly in literacy”.25 It was from these two sentences that
I saw the prospect of a triangularity existing between language and culture,
community health and wellbeing and education. On this basis I formulated
the following working hypothesis:
The degree to which Indigenous individuals (students), families and
communities will proactively and productively engage with and participate in
State mainstream educational systems and programmes, and also cultural and
societal programmes, is directly proportionate to the condition of Indigenous
individual, family and community cultural health and wellbeing. This in turn is
ST Williams, Indigenous Values Informing Curriculum and Pedagogical Praxis, PhD thesis, Deakin
University, Victoria, 2007,
<http://www.deakin.edu.au/dro/eserv/DU:30023289/williams-indigenousvalues-2007.pdf>
24Aboriginal Affairs, loc.cit.
25 ibid.
23
[9]
directly extrapolated to the robustness of Indigenous cultural praxis including
language usage, and the presence of Indigenous languages and cultures within
State mainstream education systems specifically and mainstream society more
broadly.
I will clarify at this point that I fully realise the possible dangers in the
postulation of hypotheses. Critics of research method have argued that a
hypothesis may have the effect of skewing research findings on the basis
that a risk exists wherein the researcher will intentionally work to either
confirm or refute a hypothesis in harmony with their own opinion. I could
certainly be accused of this, if for no other reason than simply because of
my Indigenous being and because of the cultural persona of the research
methodology that I have intentionally adopted. As I noted in my doctoral
study “by situating myself, as an Indigenous cultural being, within the
context of my research I feel my ability to impart a cultural insight borne of
my socio-cultural partisanship”.26 It would, of course, be comfortable for me
to plainly state that I have remained as detached as possible, but you will
know from my earlier explicit account of my own analytic/interpretive lens
that I am looking with a distinct Indigenous eye.
It would not be a quantum leap to suppose that my personal opinion tended
to create the opportunity for me to apply a preset, pre-crafted confirmation
of my hypothesis. The offset to this however is that no matter how
convincing my hypothesis may be to me personally, for my research to
maintain academic credibility I still need to either prove or repudiate my
hypothesis with a significant body of convincing evidence. This body of
evidence must enable my research to stand up to critical appraisal, which in
this particular case very much includes critical deliberation on my selection
and use of available literature. The reality of my working hypothesis is that
it is merely an enquiry device purposed towards facilitating vigorous testing
of the proposition that it represents. To ensure that this vigorous testing is
accomplished as effectively and openly as possible I have, as previously
mentioned, extrapolated a series of key guiding questions to my hypothesis,
all of which are aimed at facilitating an incisive verdict on my hypothesis.
The inquiring utility of key guiding questions has the effect of adding an
investigative safeguard into the practice of research, particularly in the case
of literature based research studies. This occurs because the key guiding
questions help to ensure that the researcher is constantly reflecting upon
what they have read and reviewing their depth of understanding. For myself,
these key guiding questions are an important checking tool because they
afford me a certain measure of protection against any danger of forsaking
26
ST Williams, op.cit., p. 112.
[10]
the integrity of inquiry to the temptation of premature conclusion. These key
guiding questions have also been instrumental in steering my thought
processes, so that I could think logically about how best to chronologically
scaffold what I feel has become a comprehensive and evocative Indigenous
story on language and culture. This scaffold, and the underpinning key
guiding questions that have informed the testing of my working hypothesis,
are as follows:
Language and Culture
1. What are language and culture?
2. What are our ways of knowing language, culture and cultural identity?
Language, Culture and Protection
1. Who are we and what is the state of our languages and cultures?
2. Why and how should our languages and cultures be protected?
Educational Engagement
1. Why is it important to teach and learn our Indigenous languages and cultures
within State mainstream education systems?
2. What educational paradigms indicate ‘best practice’ for the teaching and learning of
our Indigenous languages and cultures?
Cultural Health and Wellbeing
1. How does our use of mother tongue and our cultural praxis support our cultural
selfhood and how does this determine the cultural health and wellbeing of our
communities?
2. What role does adult and community education have in facilitating the revitalisation
and reclamation of our languages and cultures within our communities and will it
positively support our cultural health and wellbeing?
Whilst the establishment of a working hypothesis and associated key
guiding questions provided a useful inquiry device for reading, analysing
and interpreting literature, in reality the value of this was negligible without
an actual body of literature to engage with. The start point for locating this
body of literature, as you would expect, shouldn’t be particularly noteworthy
especially since the formal briefing document explicitly called for a ‘desk-top
survey’. Whilst ‘desktop’ research per se tends to relate to the business of
locating readily accessible published material over and above archival,
research and manuscript documentation, the contemporary idea behind
‘desktop’ is now so synonymous with computing that I make the
qualification that my search for literature moved beyond the confines of the
internet. No doubt much can be found on the internet, but there is a
significant non-web based body of monographic, periodical and other
material available to be consulted. Abstract level reference to these items
can be found via web-based indexes, but the items themselves must always
be personally accessed, usually through library collections and the like.
With that in mind, bouncing off the premise of my hypothesis, I began the
work of literature searching by conducting a first round or initial literature
search via appropriate web browsers, databases and catalogues using
general keywords. The keywords I chose to use at this initial stage were
[11]
necessarily broad and included Indigenous, Aboriginal, language, culture,
education, school, teaching, learning, health and so on. I ran these
keywords in a variety of combinations and in a variety of information
sources in order to make an intentionally expansive sweep of literature. My
purpose for doing so was to first of all reacquaint myself with the sheer
volume of material that has been released about us, our languages and our
cultures. I also wanted to gauge what percentage of this diverse body of
material held promise in terms of the more specific delimiters of my study. I
had, of course, always known that we represented a bountiful subject for
publication, but as a result of my first foray into the literature again, I
certainly had the magnitude of that confirmed.
I ended up collating together a range of sources identified on the basis of a
first glance read-through for possible connection with the general idea of my
working hypothesis. I then moved on to the process of deeper reading,
weeding and sorting, this time thinking more precisely about the context of
my key guiding questions. This is where the utility of my key guiding
questions proved absolutely invaluable. By continually returning to these
questions I was able to look inside the source at hand more effectively in
order to make an informed judgement about relevancy as well as academic
and cultural merit. The amount of material I ended up flagging as
worthwhile from this first search round was significant and certainly strong
enough to get the writing process well underway. As I began the work of
framing the story behind the literature, I then conducted second round
targeted literature searches with an eye to catching any material that I
might have overlooked in the first round, and as a means of confirming
existent gaps within the literature.
Inevitably with any research study that is based on an examination of
existent literature, choice of literature will undoubtedly become a matter of
post study conjecture – why did you use that reference and not this
reference? Even when literature is either selected or rejected on the basis of
relevance and informational quality that of itself may not be enough to
whittle down to a workable body of literature. Keep in mind that we
Indigenous peoples have been studied for hundreds of years, and our lives,
languages and cultures have been ‘glared’ at from every conceivable angle.
Having selected items on the basis of application to my hypothesis and key
guiding questions, I made one further judgement to do with aptness to the
integrity of the study as an Indigenous story. I looked at how each source
would help me yarn our ways of knowing. On this basis some sources stood
out more than others. You may well find that the scope of what I have relied
upon in the end is somewhat eclectic, but it is so because the power of our
[12]
Indigenous story was for me a priority over and above Westcentric academic
stridency.
Having elucidated the background of this research study from theory to
practice, I now invite you to come on a cultural learning journey with me
into our Indigenous ways of knowing. I hope that in reading my words you
come to appreciate the deeper cultural substance of our health and
wellbeing and gain meaningful insight into the challenging place that we
occupy within the theory and practice of education. The story I offer you
follows a pathway that has been consciously mapped in order to
exponentially grow your knowing. Your learning journey will begin with an
introduction into the dynamics of Western understandings of language and
culture and Indigenous intellectual ‘country’ on language, culture and
identity. You will then move on to read about our contemporary cultural
geography, including the reported status of our languages and cultures.
This will provide you with an effective pathway into understanding the
complexities of protecting and reviving our languages and cultures.
Following on from this your attention will be turned towards issues to do
with education and the broader implications of the importance of teaching
and learning our languages and cultures in terms of our community cultural
health and wellbeing.
[13]
“Land, language and culture can never be apart because that is the core that lifts up who we are”
Ngalu Patsy Bedford Bunuba Nation
Western Australia.
Chapter 2 - Language and Culture
2.1 The Dynamics of Language and Culture
Because the word ‘language’ is so commonly used, generally speaking it is
unusual outside of the variant fields of linguistics for anyone to stop and
ponder what language actually is or what language actually entails. It would
not, for instance, be an unreasonable assumption to claim that we all
understand language as essentially the words that we speak to one another
and possibly also the words that we write. But is this really all that language
is? This is actually an important question especially in respect to the
‘Aboriginal Languages Project’, because one of the two key focal points
designated for the research study underpinning this project is language.
Given this, the matter of difference between how we Indigenous peoples
understand language comparative to non-Indigenous understandings
becomes highly relevant. In order to reveal the character of this difference
we first need to explore the dynamics of language according to Western ways
of knowing.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary, a leading lexicon of English language,
language is defined as “the method of human communication, either spoken
or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional
way”.27 What I found rather informative with this particular definition is that
it also included an understanding of language as “any method of expression
or communication: body language”.28 If we focus solely on this interpretation
we can see that Western understandings of language envelop three core
elements – verbal speech communication, written word communication and
non-verbal movement communication. Immediately it becomes clear that
language is far more than what we say to one another, especially since there
is an impression that language can be regarded as the mechanism of non
word based modes of communication. I wonder though does this broad
definition sit well with the Western academic discipline that focuses on
language - linguistics, or specialisations partnered with linguistics.
In the more focused ‘Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics’ language has
been conceptualised in the main as the phenomenon of communication, but
27
28
Concise Oxford Dictionary, 11th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004.
ibid.
[14]
also more specifically as a society’s verbal tongue in the sense of what is
commonly known as ‘a language’ i.e. French, English, Spanish and so on.29
What was particularly interesting in the discussion provided in this source
was the observation that language can be considered a “...system in the
mind of an individual”.30 This observation grabbed my attention because it
seemed entirely logical to me that language does inhabit our mind, and I can
appreciate that we use language not only for external communication, but
also for processing our internal communications; that is our internal
thoughts and dialogues. Instead of just thinking about language as verbal
and possibly written and non-verbal modes of communication, thinking
about language as a system within the mind enabled me to appreciate that
there are psychological qualities to language.
The study of the psychological qualities of language within Western
academia falls within the provenance of the domain of the psychology of
language and within that the field of psycholinguistics. As the name
suggests the psychology of language is a hybrid or interdisciplinary branch
of learning based on a fusion between the otherwise discrete disciplines of
psychology and linguistics.31 In essence this amalgamated discipline takes
as its primary concern “...the mental processes that are involved in language
use”, in particular “language comprehension”, “language production” and
“language acquisition”.32 Psycholinguistics certainly seems to involve the
study of all three processes, but there does seem to be within this field a
greater emphasis on revealing through the study of language a science of
human cognition. It appears on this basis that psycholinguistics in
particular can also be thought of as being allied with Western cognitive
sciences.33
Combined these realms of study are prolific in their output. What is striking
about this output is the dominance of scientifically founded rationalisations
about the operations of language within the mind. It has to be said that this
scientific scrutiny is embedded within a Western knowledge framework and
centred on a more confined limitation of language that is predominantly
oriented towards speech. Nevertheless in terms of understanding what
language is and what language entails this diffuse body of Western
knowledge does present some interesting lines of inquiry. The context of
these lines of inquiry has been rather succinctly captured in a recurrently
P Matthews, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
2007, p.215.
30 ibid.
31 Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language, T McArthur (ed), Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 1998, Oxford Reference Online, Oxford University, State Library of NSW,<http://0www.oxfordreference.com.library.sl.nsw.gov.au/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t29.e1000>
32 DW Carroll, Psychology of Language, 4th edn, Wadsworth/Thomson, Belmont, CA, 2003, p.3.
33 ibid., p.4.
29
[15]
quoted observation advanced by the well known philosopher Ludwig
Wittgenstein who famously claimed “the limits of my language mean the
limits of my mind”.34 The implications inherent in this observation are
certainly important to understanding language in the role of cognition, but
also the relationship between language, culture and cognition and the
teaching and learning of languages and cultures more broadly.
In reading through what would best be measured as a sample range of
literature relative to the psychology of language and psycholinguistics I
began to appreciate the poignancy of questions such as: i. does language
shape and determine our cognition?, ii. does the range and content of our
languages determine the limits of our knowing?, iii. is there an implicit or
explicit correlation between language and intelligence?, and iv. if language
shapes and determines cognition what happens in the case of bilinguists
and multilinguists? No doubt there are many more questions to be pondered
about the psychological qualities of language, but one thing is apparent, to
understand language we need to think of language as more than a tool of
communication. Language at the very least occupies a primary place within
our individual psychologies. Whilst there is academic conjecture over
whether language actions cognition or cognition actions language it does
seem to me that these types of postulations are peripheral to appreciating
the depth of language as a functional agent of the cerebral process.
I want to add a word of caution here about the benefits of thinking about
language as a determinant in cognition. On the positive side realising
language beyond the practical utility of communication, especially in terms
of this study, broadens analysis of the ways and means of teaching and
learning language and culture. On the negative side scientists in the past,
most notably anthropologists, but also linguists and ethnographers, have
been quick to form judgements about our cognitive capacity based on their
entirely Westcentric interpretation of our languages, the meanings inherent
in our words and phrases, not to mention a complete misreading of the
spiritual character of our languages. What needs to be accepted is that “all
societies have languages that allow humans to express ideas of equal
complexity: there is no such thing as a ‘primitive’ language, although
societies may need to borrow or invent new words, in order to express new
concepts”.35
Just as there are psychological facets to language, there are assuredly
sociological facets. The study of these facets occupies the academic realms
L Wittgenstein as cited in DW Carroll, ibid, p.375.
J Scott & G Marshall (eds), A Dictionary of Sociology, 3rd revised edn, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 2009, pp.405-406.
34
35
[16]
of the sociology of language and sociolinguistics. The divide between the two
is quite finicky, in fact it has been suggested that these fields may well be
“...two sides of the same coin...”.36 Whatever the case may be, it appears
that the sociology of language is primarily concerned with the explanatory
value of the relationship between language and society for understanding
human social organisation, whereas sociolinguistics is primarily concerned
with the explanatory value of the same relationship for understanding
language structure and function.37 Accordingly it has been observed that
“sociolinguistics takes language as its starting point and draws on society as
a necessary background and analytic construct to understand language”.38
In contrast “the sociology of language takes society as its starting point and
analyses language developments with a view to illuminating the nature of
society”.39
Whichever position is taken much can be learnt about the reach of language
by looking through a sociological window. According to Professor of
Linguistics Ronald Wardhaugh there are four primary slants to
understanding the juxtaposition between language and society. These are: i.
“social structure may either influence or determine linguistic structure
and/or behaviour”, ii. “linguistic structure and/or behaviour may either
influence or determine social structure”, iii. “the influence is bi-directional:
language and society may influence each other” or iv. “there is no
relationship at all between linguistic structure and social structure and that
each is independent of the other”.40 The fourth slant does tend to lend itself
more readily to psycholinguistics, nevertheless the variant points of
argument about the nature of the relationship between a society and its
language run secondary to the unassailable reality that “language is a
communal possession...”.41 Language exists for all of us and centres us as
cultural beings.
The collective nature of language should be entirely obvious, but it is
probably not consciously reflected upon too often outside of academia. Not
surprisingly though, through knowing language as a human collective entity
we can identify that language is possibly the instrument of all human
interaction. We can thus know that language as the operative devise of
human communication is influential not only in the cognitive processes of
us as individuals but materialises as the conduit between ourselves as
J Swann, A Deumert, T Lillis & R Mesthrie, A Dictionary of Sociolinguistics, The University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, USA, 2004, p.288.
37 R Wardhaugh, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 3rd edn, Blackwell, Oxford, 1998, pp.12-13.
38 J Swann et al, loc.cit.
39ibid.
40 R Wardhaugh, op cit., p.10.
41 ibid.,p.2.
36
[17]
individuals and our social worlds. Even in the case where speech language
is not possible communication in one form or another, signing for example,
takes place and this communication is governed by established, consistent,
stable, translatable and transferable codifications which hold meanings;
meanings that are created and reproduced by society for the social function
of society. This is manifestly language, and it is as much sociological in
nature as it is psychological.
It has been observed that “languages in many ways reflect the culture of a
society...”.42 Appreciating language as a reflection of a society’s culture
extends further still how we can know the diverseness of language. Whilst I
will be discussing degrees of correlation between language and culture more
closely shortly, I want to highlight at this stage the functionality of language
in respect to knowledge. One of the most poignant volumes I consulted in
my quest to unveil the properties of language was the volume ‘When
Languages Die’, which was authored by Linguistics Professor K. David
Harrison.43 Apart from the disturbing reality check Harrison offered on the
state of the world’s endangered languages, including Indigenous languages,
Harrison presented within this book a compelling justification for
recognising that language is unequivocally a core repository of vast tracts of
human knowledge.
Harrison affirmed that “languages package and structure knowledge in
particular ways. You cannot merely substitute labels or names from another
language and hold onto all of the implicit, hidden knowledge that resides in
a taxonomy or naming system”.44 Not only can it be established that
language packs and stores knowledge as well as moulds the structure of
knowledge, it can also be established that each human language, as a
medium of a system of knowledge, is unique or distinct. As Harrison put it:
At its core, all human cognition may be fundamentally the same no matter what
tongue a person speaks. This has been the prevailing view in cognitive
linguistics for at least thirty years. But some people are beginning to recognize
that languages can package knowledge in radically different ways, thus
facilitating different ways of conceptualizing, naming and discussing the
world.45
This way of understanding language contrasts markedly with other
understandings within linguistics and psycholinguistics which favour a
more universal account of the fundamental structural nature of language.
The idea that the cognitive value of language stands no matter what
language is spoken is of itself unproblematic. After all, it is reasonable to
J Scott & G Marshall., loc.cit.
K D Harrison, When Languages Die: The Extinction of the World’s Languages and the Erosion of
Human Knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007.
44 ibid., p.53.
45 ibid., p.59.
42
43
[18]
accept that we all cognise within the precinct of our own language/s. But
does this of itself rationalise psycholinguistic theorisation on the
universality of language structures? Associate Professor of Spanish and
Foreign Language Education Mark K. Warford has suggested that
psycholinguistics is shrouded within a Westcentric rationalist thinking that
tends to abstract or decontextualise language from its cultural mooring.46
He reports that Professor of Linguistics Noam Chomsky is considered “the
father of modern linguistics” and that “Chomsky and his followers believe
that language learning is largely a matter of universal rule-governed
processes in the individual mind”.47 Warford appears to contest the strength
of this position, favouring a more socio-cultural viewpoint about language
and language cognition. I can see why Warford thinks this way, because it
remains difficult for me to conceptualise language and language acquisition
as an entity beyond the influence of culture?
Chomsky has also been reported by another authority to have asserted that
“children are born with an innate, biological programme that prepares them
for how languages are structured”.48 It may well be reasonable to accept that
there are aspects of commonality in language learning that may be
organically human. I remain less convinced however that there is sameness
or similarity in the technical fundamentals of language structures and
grammars, which impact learning. I only have to ponder the complexities of
what is colloquially known as African ‘click’ languages, which I discuss
further on, to feel justified in refuting this universal thesis. A rather
interesting, but technically complex study recently undertaken into “wordorder universals” in “four large language families”, including African Bantu
languages which feature ‘clicking’ found that “linguistic diversity does not
seem to be tightly constrained by universal cognitive factors specialised for
language. Instead it is the product of cultural evolution...”.49
The theoretical premise underpinning ‘universals’ has dominated linguistic
theory for decades now so it is useful to see science considering its
limitations, and looking to the cultural specificity of language. The value of
this will become apparent when I consider the revival of our languages in
particular, which I do in Chapter 3. Notwithstanding this, Linguistics
Professor Neil Smith, who is known for his study of Chomsky’s theories
regarding the universal nature of language, commented in the opening
passage of his paper ‘Chomsky’s science of language’ that:
MK Warford, ‘Narrative language pedagogy and the stabilisation of Indigenous languages’, The
Reading Matrix, vol.11, no.2, 2011, pp. 76-88.
47 ibid., p.77.
48 J Scott & G Marshall, loc. cit.
49 M Dunn, SJ Greenhill, SC Levinson & RD Gray, ‘Evolved structure of language shows lineagespecific trends in word-order universals’, Nature, vol.473, no.7345, pp.79-82.
46
[19]
One of Chomsky’s achievements is to have demonstrated that, despite the
easily observable richness of the world’s languages, there is really only one
human language: that the complex and bewildering array of different
languages surrounding us are all variations on a single theme, most of
whose properties are innately given.50
My contact with the literature convinces me that whilst there are quite a
number of Western academics who wholeheartedly support theories of
universality, there are equally those who do not. Without becoming bogged
down in an extended discussion about the polemics of the universality of
language what can be discerned in concentrating on Harrison’s work alone
is that the scale of differing knowledge ways, and I would add
communication ways, packaged within these languages, must profile each
culture’s language as unique. Harrison cites knowledges to do with ecology,
time keeping, geographical mapping and mathematics in order to
demonstrate his thesis regarding the diversity of human knowledge locked
within the vastness of the world’s languages. These include examples such
as:





the impressively detailed identification of fish species in the language of the
Solomon Islands which have scoped well beyond Western knowledge of fish
species 51
time keeping systems of the Yukaghir peoples of Siberia, who express time in
units relative to kettle boiling 52
our own nations Yanyuwa peoples of the Kimberley region who calendar time
relative to seasonal fluctuations in edible plant growth cycles 53
The epic storying of the Tofa, Ambae and Tuvan peoples of Siberia who lock
geographical mapping within story 54
The mathematical concepts of the Kaluli peoples of Papua/New Guinea whose
counting mechanisms are related to gradations on the body 55
There are many more examples that can demonstrate the knowledge cargo
of language, but perhaps one of the best known anecdotal examples centres
on the number of words that Inuit peoples have for snow. This example is
widely known but was specifically cited by Benjamin Lee Whorf, an amateur
linguist, who crops up consistently within literature pertinent to both
psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics.56 It is asserted that the Inuit peoples
have a vast array of words all referencing snow. What is interesting about
this index of words is that each word is a highly specific articulation of
knowledge of the myriad ecological conditions of snow. It is a trend we can
see with many of our Indigenous cultures such as the Ifugao peoples of the
N Smith, ‘Chomsky’s science of language’ in J McGilvray (ed) Cambridge Companion to Chomsky,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, Cambridge Collections Online, State Library of New
South Wales, DOI:10.1017/CCOL0521780136;002, p.21.
51 KD Harrison, op.cit., p.42.
52 ibid., p.81.
53 ibid., p.85.
54 ibid., p.135.
55 ibid., p.174 -.
56 DW Carroll, op.cit. pp. 376 - 399 & R Wardhaugh, op.cit., pp.216 – 222.
50
[20]
Philippines who similarly have a vast number of words denoting highly
specific conditions related to rice growing, and the Sámi peoples who have a
vast vocabulary related to conditions of reindeer herding.57
Carroll duly noted that:
whatever the final consensus might be on Eskimo snow words, the more general
notion that languages differ in the degree to which they differentiate various
lexical domains does not seem to be at issue. The question is whether these
differences lead to differences in thinking. Whorf suggested that they did, in the
sense that when we encounter a particular word on a regular basis, it may
influence our habitual thought patterns (that is, the kind of thought process
that comes easily or naturally to an individual). 58
For some reason this view of language is perpetually referenced, even
though it is also perpetually refuted. In fact Whorf’s view is well known as
the ‘Whorfian hypothesis’ or the ‘Sapir-Whorf hypothesis’, the ‘Sapir’ aspect
acknowledges Whorf’s mentor linguist Edward Sapir. A rather easy
summary of this hypothesis has been offered by Wardhaugh who clarified
that Whorf’s viewpoint proposed that:
...language provides a screen or filter to reality; it determines how
speakers perceive and organize the world around them, both the natural
world and the social world. Consequently, the language you speak helps to
form your world-view. It defines your experience for you; you do not use it
simply to report that experience. It is not neutral but gets in the way,
imposing habits of both looking and thinking. 59
The idea that speech language helps reinforce worldview is to my mind
perfectly reasonable, but does the use of speech language alone define
worldview? I’ll explain why I ask this briefly because I’ll be addressing this in
far greater detail in the next section of this chapter. Basically, I accept that
language is a carrier of knowledge. I only have to look at what I cannot
access in my own cultures knowledges because of the decimation of my
languages to know that categorically. I also accept that language as the
carrier of knowledge reflects the culture to which it belongs. Language, for
me, has a cultural identity because it is culturally produced and is
culturally reproduced. Can I then conclude that it also exclusively
determines worldview? I would argue that this is perhaps difficult to affirm
because even though I mostly speak English, or more correctly Aboriginal
English, I still maintain a very strong Indigenous cultural worldview; how do
I do that if I don’t fully converse in my mother tongues?
Language itself is often cited as the key mode of cultural identity, and
undoubtedly it appears so for peoples who are privileged to have their full
mother tongue/s, but cultural identity as you will read further on is
57
58
59
KD Harrison, loc.cit.
DW Carroll. op.cit.,p.378.
ibid., p.219.
[21]
multifaceted involving not just speech language. Perhaps cultural identity is
more closely sustained by the power of ideologies, philosophies, principles
and values embedded within ontological concepts and epistemological
concepts. Coloniser languages such as English have of course been
successfully morphed by us to promote our unique identity and therefore
our worldview. Here in New South Wales, but also throughout Australia, we
call this ‘Aboriginal English’, but there are also forms such as Creole
languages as well. My point here is that when it comes to cultural identity,
language is certainly a factor shaping identity, or in the case of Aboriginal
English shaped by identity, but the actual use of mother tongue itself is
perhaps not completely defining of identity. So in understanding what
language is and what language entails it is possibly unwise to become overly
keen about the use of speech language as being the whole font of worldview
and identity.
That said, one matter that may complicate this view to a certain extent is
the idea of language as power. Now I admit that it sounds very strange that
language should have power given that language is an abstract rather than
physical entity, but as you will find from reading Chapter 3 there is a
politics to language that does invoke power and which does hold significant
implications for the teaching and learning of our Indigenous languages and
cultures. The hegemony of English over us the colonised is a primary case in
point, as is the Westcentric psycholinguistic rationalisation of the nature of
language as universal. I think though we can make a differentiation between
what can be considered language per se and what can be considered the
consequence of the actions of users of language, or the theorisations offered
by Western academics who subscribe to specific standpoints about the
nature of language founded within their own unique system of knowledge.
This then marks a cut off point between exploring Western ideas about the
phenomenon of language itself and the wider dynamics of language
application. Smith meaningfully wrote “whatever we do, language is central
to our lives, and the use of language underpins the study of every other
discipline. Understanding language gives us insight into ourselves and a tool
for the investigation of the rest of the universe”.60 This seems wholly certain;
definitely I have found that language conflates communication in its many
forms with individual cognition and societal knowledge banking to form a
single all encompassing entity that stands preeminent in all personal and
social life worlds to the point where basic human function seems utterly
impossible without it. Language is intrinsic to us as individuals and
intrinsic to us as social beings. Its alleged universality is by any standard
60
N Smith., loc.cit.
[22]
moderated by the sheer magnificence of the diversity of what we as humans
have created as instruments for the function and perpetuation of our own
distinct cultures.
Culture, like language, is another common use word that we all appear to
understand. The frequency with which it appears in everyday speech seems
to suggest that its meaning is entirely unproblematic for us, yet within
Western academia it remains a theoretical difficulty.61 The late Raymond
Williams, who was a highly respected and renowned cultural theorist,
evocatively wrote that “culture is one of the two or three most complicated
words in the English language...mainly because it has now come to be used
for important concepts in several distinct intellectual disciplines and in
several distinct and incompatible systems of thought”.62 It appears that over
the centuries Western conceptualisations of culture have evolved
considerably, and nowadays denote concepts that Williams affirmed align
more readily with the processes of “intellectual, spiritual and aesthetic
development” and artistic endeavour, but also the machinery of a society’s
given way of life.63
In terms of this study it would be easy for me to simply say that the
definition that I will be relying upon relates to the idea of culture as a way of
life, but that would not facilitate meaningful understanding of the deeper
dynamics behind the word culture, especially given that Western
conceptualisations about culture have literally and profoundly penetrated
into our Indigenous life worlds, and at a global level. It would not be an
exaggeration to say that historically, because of the Western ideology of
racial superiority that was formulated and justified on the basis of a very
narrow and highly prejudicial understanding of the fusion between the
notion of culture, the notion of civilisation and the notion of progress that
we Indigenous peoples are still heavily occupied with the business of
rebuking Western hegemony. I suspect I would not be undertaking this very
study if this ideology had not been so successful in permeating and directing
the fundamental mindset of the British Empire, which precipitated the long
term multi-generational subjugation of us.
This mindset was successful, highly successful, and it was undoubtedly the
realisation of this that underscored why I first chose to critically examine
Western ways of thinking about culture, civilisation and progress when I
was working on my doctoral thesis. I soon came to realise that there is an
61T
Bennett, ‘culture’ in T Bennett, L Grossberg & M Morris (eds), New Keywords: A Revised
Vocabulary of Culture and Society, Blackwell, Malden, MA, 2005, pp. 63 - 69.
62 R Williams, Keywords: a Vocabulary of Culture and Society, Flamingo, Condor, 1983, p.87.
63 ibid, p.90.
[23]
intense political undertone belying the seemingly harmless nature of the
word culture. I saw how the politics of culture quintessentially illustrates
the suppressive powers of language, and how easily the context behind a
single word can be construed to produce far reaching consequences. At the
time that I first looked into this, I drew heavily upon the work of William’s
and Professor of Sociology Chris Jenks because both academics stood out as
noted authorities on the study of culture, and both had coincidently
authored volumes entitled ‘Culture’.64 It is my intention to return once again
to their insightful expertise in order to explain my critique.
Williams’ abridged account of culture explained that the etymology of
culture is allied with the concept of growth because originally culture was
more an agricultural term, though it came to be applied in reference to the
human experience as early as the 16th century.65 I noted in my thesis that
“the idea of culture as growth at first seems entirely safe especially since no
human society is static, or any human being for that matter”.66 Growth is
after all normally fundamental to all of us, and it is as much cognitive as it
is physical. Despite noting this, I then moved on to assert that the idea of
culture as growth was not as innocuous as one might suppose.67 I based my
contention on the observation that when the idea of culture as growth is
extrapolated with notions of civilisation and progress, culture is infinitely
more potent. Williams noted an interesting transition in the inference of
culture in England in the 18th century that brought culture as growth all the
more closer to the idea of human cultivation,68 and inevitably perceptions
about what typified a ‘civilised’ human being.
The idea of human cultivation still has currency today. We only need look at
a standard Western definition of culture to appreciate this. According to the
Concise Oxford Dictionary Western understandings of culture proclaim
culture to be “the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual
achievement regarded collectively. A refined understanding or appreciation
of this” as well as “the customs, ideas, and social behaviour of a particular
people or group”.69 Clearly the first interpretation in this definition speaks to
the idea of human cultivation, if only by mention of the word achievement.
The additional reference to ‘refined understanding’ is more telling because it
does nothing to ameliorate the intensity of this interpretation of culture as
indicative of the possibility of a more advanced or developed level of human
consciousness. The growth metaphor is really quite visible. The second
64
65
66
67
68
69
ST Williams, op.cit, p.22.
R Williams, op.cit. p.87.
ST Williams, op.cit., p.23.
ibid.
R Williams, op.cit., p.88.
Concise Oxford Dictionary, loc.cit.
[24]
meaning, however, appears unrelated to the first, certainly there seems to be
no suggestion of refinement or perhaps even sophistication.
This apparent disparity in contemporary Western definitions of culture
substantiates rather well just how diffuse a term culture remains. I want to
look at both these overarching concepts of culture in greater detail in order
to better understand what culture actually is, and what culture entails.
Beginning with the first interpretation, it has to be said that when
conceptualisations of culture are intimately linked with the process of
growth, and indeed cultivation, especially in relation to intellectual and
artistic endeavour, there is always an inherent danger that measurements
expressing what constitutes ‘refined’ achievement of growth and/or
cultivation will be applied in order to decide what is and what is not
‘cultured’. Jenks observed that when culture is associated with notions of
process there is an implication of “...not just transition but also a goal in the
form of ‘culture itself; it is here that hierarchical notions begin to emerge
such as the ‘cultured person’, or ‘cultivated groups or individuals’ and even
the idea of a ‘high culture’...”.70
There is on this basis a recognisable aspect to culture that substantiates
that culture may be implicit in the business of social stratification.
Historically, social stratification was most visible during the years of colonial
expansion and occupation by the British and other European empires.
Cultivation of the ‘cultured self’ and ‘cultured society’ became a serious
preoccupation for these empires, and intensified significantly during the
Victorian era of the British Empire. These empires subscribed to the belief
that a ‘cultured person’ was a ‘civilised person’. It has been observed that:
civilization and culture, in this conception, showed a progressive tendency
towards what were regarded as higher moral values, and this enabled the
Victorian mind to construct a hierarchy of cultures or civilizations which
provided a rationale for colonial activities by apparently higher-order Western
civilizations.71
This was echoed by Professor Tony Bennett who corroborated that when:
used as a way of dividing colonized populations into separate groups
identified in terms of ways of life, the ethnographic concept of culture was
integral to the development of colonial systems of rule which aimed to
segregate populations along racial and ethnic lines.72
It appears then, that even the second definition of culture as a way of life is
not altogether innocent of negative connotation. Jenks pointed out that the
concept of culture being a way of life was promoted through the discipline of
early anthropology as a way of marking human existence off from animal
70
71
72
C Jenks, Culture, 2nd edn, Routledge, London, 2005, p.8.
J Scott & G Marshall, op.cit., p.132.
T Bennett, op.cit., p.68.
[25]
existence.73 “In an early sense culture was precisely the collective noun used
to define that realm of human being which marked its ontology off from the
sphere of the merely natural”.74 There would, therefore, be some expectation
that under this definition of culture all human societies would’ve been
viewed with far greater equality. This however was not the case. As Professor
Linda Tuhiwai Smith put it “the ethnographic ‘gaze’ of anthropology has
collected, classified and represented other cultures to the extent that
anthropologists are often the academics popularly perceived by the
indigenous world as the epitome of all that is bad with academics”.75
It seems that all that really happened with the variation between the
understanding of culture as an intellectual, artistic or aesthetic process and
the understanding of culture as a way of life was a merger. By whatever
definition you choose to cite there is no getting around the fact that
understandings about culture led to the application of hierarchies of
cultures and civilisations that relegated us Indigenous peoples to the bottom
rung of the Western evolutionary ladder. Actually, when you think about it
culture as a way of life held no meaning for us at all at that time because we
weren’t seen as having a recognisably civilised or even basic human way of
life. This was even further exacerbated by the idea of progress, which when
used as a measure of the cultivation of civilisation and ultimately culture,
convinced Western societies that we were incapable of ‘growth’ because of
our so-called ‘primitive’ being. This understanding of culture, and its effect,
really didn’t abate significantly until well into the twentieth century.
In Australia the residue of this early thinking still permeates how our
cultures are thought about today. In reflecting upon this at a personal level,
I still come across attitudes towards our peoples and cultures which reflect
the discriminatory ‘civilisation-cultivation-progress’ ideology of early
colonialism. Historically, the British presumed that our only salvation lay in
expunging from us our cultural being so that we might take on the mores of
their own allegedly ‘progressive’, ‘civilised’ and ‘cultured’ society. That
presumption was entrenched within a sense of superiority that still lingers
today, no matter how subtle. It is all well and good to assume that this form
of thinking is redundant within contemporary Australian society, but if it is,
why then has our current Social Justice Commissioner Mick Gooda felt the
need to remind Australians of the hurtful nature of racism. Mick recently
73
74
75
C Jenks, op.cit.,p.8.
ibid.
LT Smith, op.cit., p.67.
[26]
reiterated that we remain the butt of “...disparaging comments dressed up
as jokes”. 76
For me, it is dreadfully disturbing to continue to read comments such as “in
Australia, racism undermines the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander peoples, and redressing racism has been identified as
a national priority”77 or to come up against headings such as ‘Racism: a
major impediment to optimal Indigenous health and health care in
Australia’,78 which not only highlight that our peoples still experience racist
attitudes, but that our actual health and wellbeing is seriously compromised
because of it. I will reflect upon these sources later on, I mention them now
to highlight that racism remains an issue for us, and it does so because of
the historically bias way culture was conceptualised. Knowing that culture
was, and possibly still is, defined in this way, backgrounds the deeper layers
of why it is difficult for some people to accept the relevancy of teaching and
learning Indigenous languages and cultures.
It has to be said, though, that this more draconian way of understanding
culture has been significantly tempered over the years through vigorous
critique emanating out of Western academic disciplines such as sociology,
contemporary anthropology and cultural studies. It has also been
energetically refuted through Indigenous counter hegemonic assertion.
Culture nowadays is still extrapolated with the arts, and still embraces the
goal of becoming ‘cultured’, but it is more popularly accepted within
Westcentric societies that being ‘cultured’ does not of itself necessarily
equate with some form of higher order human status, though Jenks does
suggest that the intellectual and artistic aspects of Western society can lead
to “...senses of particularity, exclusivity, [and] elitism...”.79 Current
understandings of culture as a way of life, however, have been successfully
rehabilitated to move substantially away from all of this, in fact I have
previously referred to the potential of this way of knowing culture as
emancipatory.80
Jenks has noted that “in its most general and pervasive sense it [culture]
directs us to a consideration of all that which is symbolic...”. 81 In clarifying
M Gooda, ‘Real people affected by racist taunts’, Aboriginal and Islander Health Worker Journal,
vol.34, no.4, 2010, p.19.
77 NC Priest, YC Paradies, W Gunthorpe, SJ Cairney & SM Sayers, ‘Racism as a determinant of social
and emotional wellbeing for Aboriginal Australian youth’, Medical Journal of Australia, vol.194, no.10,
2011, p.546.
78 N Awofeso, ‘Racism: A major impediment to optimal Indigenous health and health care in Australia’,
Australian Indigenous Health Bulletin, vol.11, no.3, 2011, pp. 1-13.
79 C Jenks, op.cit., p.12.
80 ST Williams, op.cit., p.24.
81 C. Jenks, op.cit., p.8.
76
[27]
this context of culture as a way of life it has been similarly observed that
“when social scientists use the term culture they tend to be talking about a
less restrictive concept than that implied in everyday speech. In social
science, culture is all that in human society which is socially rather than
biologically transmitted...”.82 Under this definition, culture sweeps within it
what the late Professor of Sociology Tom Bottomore has termed all the
“...ideational aspects of society...”.83 Interestingly, Bennett credits the
influence of Raymond Williams in freeing culture as a divisive term stuck on
a “...normative view of culture [which] turned out, in practice, to have strong
connections with the particular values of ruling groups and classes...”84
because Williams greatly expanded how culture could be understood.
Culture we can thus know is now far more than a metaphor for Westcentric
‘high culture’ or ‘civilised’ identity. Culture may well have existing links with
the arts, literature, music and so on, but these links, even within a Western
mindset, can be said to spotlight, rather than nullify, the inference that
culture is overarchingly a term that encapsulates all those aspects of human
being that have been created not only for amusement or aesthetic pleasure,
but for day-to-day social functioning. Culture by Western definition is
patently art, music, song, dance, literature, language, values, ideology,
philosophy and so on. Culture, from a Western standpoint, can be all that
determines the sociological aspects of a human individual’s collective
identity. As you read on I would like to encourage you to stop and think
about this Western delineation between what is and what is not human; it is
surely a major point of departure between Western ways of knowing and our
Indigenous ways of knowing.
2.2 Indigenous Ways of Knowing Language, Culture and Identity
What you have read thus far snapshots Western concepts of language and
culture. It would be inaccurate, however, to assume that Western
understandings of language and culture parallel completely with Indigenous
understandings of language and culture. Undoubtedly there are many
similarities, but there are also noteworthy points of departure that are
particularly significant, especially when it comes to deliberation on matters
to do with our education and our community health and wellbeing. Instead
of launching headlong into an itemised account of what these points of
departure entail I am going to begin my yarning here by paying my respect
to the profound voice of one of Australia’s most esteemed Indigenous Yolŋu
leaders and Yolŋu linguists, the late Dr Marika. Dr Marika was instrumental
in working to sustain her languages and played a key role alongside fellow
82
83
84
J Scott & G Marshall, loc.cit.
T Bottomore cited in ST Williams, loc.cit.
T Bennett, op.cit., p.67.
[28]
Yolŋu leaders in designing culturally founded school programmes for Yolŋu
children.
During her lifetime Dr Marika remained a strong advocate of bilingual twoway or both-way education philosophy. Dr Marika was conversant with
multiple clan languages; indeed it is known that English was possibly her
fourteenth language. Dr Marika was a Director with Reconciliation Australia
and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies
[AIATSIS]. In 2006 Dr Marika was named Territorian of the Year, in 2007
she received her honorary doctorate from Charles Darwin University, and in
2009 she was posthumously made a Member of the Order of Australia at the
Garma Festival on her own country in East Arnhem Land. For me her words
continue to resonate with deep cultural meaning and carry within them the
deep spirit energy that contextualises our Indigenous languages. In her
testimony before the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Affairs in 1999 Dr Marika said:
...the language of our old people is esoteric. It defines the land where they come
from. It has boundaries. It has boundaries out in the sea also—the sea and the
land; there is nothing different about that. I would like to tell you that the land
has multilayers of literacy for Yolngu. It is text. It is what these old people sing
and dance. It is what they educate our children about.
...land and language go hand in hand. It is all linked together, because without
language we cannot define our land.85
In the words of Dr Marika I hear attestation of the presence of our languages
within country. In yarning our ways of thinking language and culture I
make it known up front that each word that we have or should have and
each communicative medium that we use or would use has the strength to
bring us home to country and sustain us within the spiritual realm of
country. This is not an idealistic statement about what language once was
for us, it is a forthright cultural declaration that I make so that there is no
lingering doubt over the reality that for us Indigenous peoples language
remains omnipresent within our spirit memory, even in those of us who
have been forcibly excised from language. Language for us has spiritual
presence and spirit character. It is not a singular or isolated entity of culture
and it cannot be culturally intellectualised outside the ontological
mainframe of country. There is deep cultural emotion to be heard and
expressed within our yarning about language and culture. Throughout this
research study you will hear the deep pain in this emotion.
Dr Marika as cited in House of Representatives, Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Affairs, Canberra, 1999. Testimony taken at Yirrkala, 6 th May, 1999,
<http:www.aph.gov.au/Senate/Committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/200407/nt_emergency/report/report.pdf>
85
[29]
When I first began to imagine how I might story our ways of knowing
language I reflected upon words I’d once heard in the documentary ‘First
Australians’.86 In Episode 3 a missionary is quoted as saying in reference to
our ceremonial praxis, usually termed corroborree, that we displayed
“...shocking gestures in satanical excitement...” and that our praxis
amounted to being “...a real festival of the enemy of the soul”.87 The thought
of these words of course highlighted afresh the suffering and pain of our
forebears, but oddly they also triggered me to stop and think about what
corroborree genuinely is. I realised in sweeping aside all of the myriad
reasons behind why corroborree might be held that corroborree at its most
fundamental level is essentially purposed for communication. By recognising
this I was able to reaffirm to myself that our Indigenous understandings of
language centre as much on human to spirit communication as human to
human communication.
Dr Marika emphasised spirit communication in her reference to the song
and dance of her ‘old peoples’. Song and dance are core mediums of the
knowledge, law, lore and pedagogical praxis of corroborree. When I pondered
what corroborree is in relation to the spirit communication of song and
dance I remembered what I’d been taught by my own family Elders about
language. Language for us is not just speech word, it is song phrase, sound
phrase, sign phrase, movement phrase, image phrase; and it is an integral
part of us, part of who we are. The New South Wales Department of
Aboriginal Affairs 2004 ‘New South Wales Aboriginal Languages Policy’
certainly affirmed that for us “...language is much more than just words. It
is a direct link to land and country. It holds traditional songs and stories. It
is about spirituality and deep meaning, and it reflects unique cultural
concepts and ways of looking at the world”.88 This way of thinking language
is mirrored in the voice of many other Indigenous peoples.
Here in New South Wales Wiradjuri Elder Uncle Stan Grant Senior, a
respected knowledge holder of Wiradjuri language, emphasised that
“Wiradjuri has its own way of thinking...”.89 Gumbaynggirr spokesperson
Aiden Ridgeway similarly said that language “...goes to the heart and soul of
one’s identity and gives connection to family, country and community. It
instils a sense of enormous pride and provides the strength from which to
D Dale & R Perkins (producers), First Australians: The Untold Story of Australia, Television
Programme, Blackfella Films for SBS Corporation, DVD released and distributed by Madman Films,
2008.
87 ibid., Episode 3 ‘Freedom for our lifetime’.
88New South Wales Department of Aboriginal Affairs, New South Wales Aboriginal Languages Policy,
2004, p.1.
89 S Grant Snr & J Rudder, A First Wiradjuri Dictionary: English to Wiradjuri Wiradjuri to English and
Categories of Things, Restoration House, O’Connor, ACT, 2005, p.5.
86
[30]
see the world...”.90 Yawuru spokesperson and noted Indigenous leader Pat
Dodson also stressed that “language is important because language is the
one that gives you the way to interpret the world, how you can express
things in your own imagery and gives you an insight or a window into a
different world”.91 This same sense of language comes through in
international Indigenous voice as well. Leading Indigenous Arapaho
academic Professor Stephen Greymorning worried “...if we lose our language
we won’t be able to think in the Arapaho way”.92
The interconnectivity between language, worldview and identity seems
entirely innate for us. Even within the media representations of government
there is recognition of the place of Indigenous language within Indigenous
identity. I found the exact same extrapolation of language to identity in the
publicity of the Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council for the Department of
Housing, Local Government and Regional Services of the Northern Territory
Government, in which they assert “Aboriginal languages are the ‘heart and
soul of the Northern Territory’ and Aboriginal language and culture is the
core of Aboriginal identity”.93 This fundamental idea of language as identity
is very broadly accepted, certainly Kipuri affirmed that language “...is not
only a communication tool, it is often linked to the land or region
traditionally occupied by indigenous peoples; it is an essential component of
one’s collective and individual identity and therefore provides a sense of
belonging and community”.94
Of course, the association of identity to language is not unique to us; many
non-Indigenous societies also claim their sense of national or cultural
identity on the basis of language. However, the politics that surround
Indigenous counter colonial representation makes emphasis of this point
particularly important for us. This is something I will discuss more
thoroughly further on because language as a face of our identity also
articulates who we are as members of distinct cultural nationhood’s, and
that in turn has bearing in the delineation of the precincts of our lands.
Apart from being a fundamental aspect of what forms our worldview and
identity, language is naturally the instrument of our human to human and
human to spirit communications. It is with spiritual communication that
90
A Ridgeway, ‘Language is power; let us have ours’, Sydney Morning Herald, 26 November 2009,
<http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/language-is-power-let-us-have-ours-20091125-jrsb.html>
91 P Dodson as cited in New Legend: A Story of Law and Culture and the Fight for Self-Determination in
the Kimberley, Kimberley Aboriginal and Culture Centre, Fitzroy Crossing, WA, 2006, p.64.
92 S Greymorning, ‘Running the gauntlet of an Indigenous language program’ in J Reyhner, G
Cantoni, RN St Clair & E Parsons Yazzie (eds), Revitalising Indigenous Languages, Northern Arizona
University, Flagstaff, AZ, 1999, <http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/RIL_2.html>
93 NT Government, Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services, Indigenous
Affairs Advisory Council, 17June 2011,
<http://www.dhlgrs.nt.gov.au/indigenous_development/indigenous_affairs_advisory_council>
94 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, op.cit., p.58.
[31]
one of the most significant points of departure between Indigenous and nonIndigenous ways of knowing language can be found.
This point of departure centres on literacy. In Western thought there is a
very close association between language and literacy. Literacy, by Western
definition, tends to be associated exclusively with the written medium, it
being commonly defined as “the ability to read and write”.95 Historically, our
reliance on orality was referenced within Western systems of knowledge as
evidence of our alleged ‘primitivism’, in that we were said to be illiterate. The
issue of literacy is interesting though because our reliance on orality
invoked the creation of multidimensional spiritual literacies. In reflecting
back on the words of Dr Marika about the correlation between language,
literacy and country, I was drawn to the instructive account of Indigenous
research methodologies offered by Chilisa. Chilisa rightfully noted that our
research methodologies are open to modes of literacy that include
“...language, cultural artefacts, legends, stories, practices, songs, rituals,
poems, dances, tattoos ...”.96
To me Chilisa’s expansion of what can be thought of as sources of literature
is not only illustratively useful in terms of demonstrating the conceptual
breadth of our modes of literacy, it also provides a solid representation of
the diverseness of the communicative forms that constitute Indigenous
languages. For us, language steps well outside the standard medium of
speech in the same way that our spiritual modes of literacy step well outside
the limitations of Western writing. Apart from the challenge this represents
to notions of us as purely ‘oral’ societies, it signals that we understand
language very expansively. There is an analogy for us between that which is
spoken and that which is sung, toned, signed, danced and imaged. When we
speak of language we often think in these wider terms so our
understandings of language imply more than just a lexicon of words. Our
languages also contain lexicons of sound vocabulary, lexicons of sign
vocabulary, lexicons of movement vocabulary and lexicons of image
vocabulary.
These vocabularies are highly complex and normally regulated by knowledge
stratifications determined through the spirit laws/lores defined within our
ontology’s. In turning to image vocabulary as a case in point, one need look
no further than the artistic output of one of Australia’s strongest and
internationally renowned Indigenous art companies, the Papunya Tula
artists’ movement of the Central Western Desert region, to understand the
reality of image vocabulary. In her documentary ‘Art + Soul’, Indigenous
95
96
Concise Oxford Dictionary, loc.cit.
B Chilisa, op.cit., p.60.
[32]
Eastern Arrernte/Kalkadoon art expert Hetti Perkins describes the work of
the Papunya Tula artists as encompassing encrypted knowledge.97 In using
the phrase encrypted knowledge Hetti is effectively emphasising the deeper
communicative dimensions of Indigenous image language. These artworks
can only be fully read, interpreted and comprehended by persons educated
into the spirit vocabulary that is embedded as seemingly non-descript dots,
strokes and swirls.
You see in order to produce a readable imaged record of knowledge there
has to be in place and in use an established, consistent, stable, translatable
and transferable set of codifications of meaning – in short a language. There
are many famed artists connected with the Papunya Tula movement, but by
way of example I want to turn your attention to the work of the late
Anmatyerre artist Mr Clifford Possum Tjapaltjarri. In his work ‘Mt Denison
Country’ Mr Tjapaltjarri has recorded information related to the spiritual
geography of his country.98 The work itself is highly intricate containing
many coloured, cylindrical and lineal elements, and it is no doubt
aesthetically valuable. To my cultural mind, however, the artistic merit of
this work runs second to its literary value. When I look at it, even though I
cannot read it, I can nonetheless appreciate that it carries voice; that it
speaks visually of Anmatyerre country and Anmatyerre ways of knowing.
If however you find the idea of a painting as having literary legitimacy
somewhat disconcerting then I invite you to consider the Ngurrara Canvas, a
massive 10 x 8 metre panelled work created in response to the Westcentric
need for material forms of evidence to substantiate the merits of a Native
Title claim.99 This claim was successful on the basis of this work. Its
acceptance in Australian mainstream law to my mind set a meaningful
precedent for recognising our myriad forms of literacy as language. I
understand though that the idea of an image vocabulary may be hard for
non-Indigenous peoples to appreciate. Dr Marika did note that our
languages are esoteric, that is spiritually cryptic. She did so for a very good
reason. They are without doubt complicated, and this complicated nature
was noticeably confirmed by Meiki Elizabeth Apted who studied the
seemingly enigmatic spirit language of Inyjalarrku song in North West
Arnhem land.100
H Perkins (writer/presenter), Art + Soul: a Personal Journey into the World of Aboriginal Art,
Television Programme, Screen Australia, 2010.
98 CP Tjapaltjarri, ‘Mt Denison Country’, reproduced in V Johnson, Clifford Possum Tjapaltjarri, Art
Gallery of South Australia, Adelaide, 2003, p. 233.
99 Ngurrara: The Great Sandy Desert Canvas: A South Australian Museum travelling exhibition, n.d.,
Exhibition Pamphlet.
100 ME Apted, ‘Songs from the Inyjalarrku: The use of a non-translatable spirit language in a song set
from North-West Arnhem Land, Australia’, Australian Journal of Linguistics, vol.30, no.1, 2010, pp.
93-103.
97
[33]
Apted noticed that Indigenous song language was highly complex, involving
“...non-decipherable, non-translatable, non-interpretable linguistic material
...” that is never found within everyday speech.101 According to Apted nonIndigenous attempts have been made over the years to try and interpret this
language, and in some instances degrees of interpretation have been
possible when song and story correlate, or song is communicated using nonlaw/lore spirit language used in everyday speech, but by and large spirit
song language remains impenetrable to linguistic science.102 Apted’s
observation that “...Inyjalarrku songs are composed from a recognizable set
of word-like forms that form a kind of quasi-lexicon” is telling in that it
corroborates my assertion that our languages do comprise song and sound
lexicons.103 I, of course, question the idea of quasi, but I do understand that
for Western linguists the idea of spirit language is difficult to unpackage
because we are talking about a lexical body which confronts accepted
Western understandings of linguistic feature.
Linguist Dr Michael Walsh also looked into the qualities of Indigenous song
language in his consideration of existing research and literature entitled
‘Australian Aboriginal song language: So many questions, so little to work
with’.104 What I found most revealing, but personally disturbing, about
Walsh’s study was just how fascinated Western linguists are with the
scientific dissection of what is a deeply spiritual and most sacrosanct form
of our human-spirit communication. Walsh did, however, highlight that our
song languages in particular are in peril, even in cases where “...everyday
spoken language remains healthy”.105 He also reflects Apted’s finding that
song language can range from having “...little, or no, connection with the
host language” through to being “quite similar to the everyday spoken
language”.106 What I felt with both Apted and Walsh was that their interest
in our song languages was too concentrated on trying to expose Westcentric
technical aspects of language, rather than the profound ontological place of
language.
The highly secret, intense and experiential spirit language of song is usually
communicated within specific time space such as dream and in a
vocabulary specific to the spirit communicator. These songs are sung
usually by those persons who are highly ranked as spirit knowledge holders
ibid., p.94.
ibid., p.95.
103 ibid., p.100.
104 M Walsh, ‘Australian Aboriginal song language: so many questions, so little to work with’,
Australian Aboriginal Studies, no.2, 2007, pp.128–144.
105 ibid. p.130.
106 ibid.
101
102
[34]
and who transmit ceremonially through the spiritual praxis of country.
Walsh indicates that song language was once wide spread, though he is less
specific in terms of the prevalence of secret spirit language.107 At a personal
level I know from my late mother’s testimony as a Dhungutti Elder, that our
cultures along the North Coast of New South Wales did maintain
knowledges and communicate knowledges within modes of non-speech
language. Mum learnt as much as a child when participating in female
dance ceremony herself. On this basis it would not, in my estimation, be a
wild assumption to presume that all our Australian Indigenous cultures at
one time possessed these non-speech sacred spirit language forms.
In fact in one particular study, undertaken in 1967 by the late and
renowned Professor of Linguistics Ken Hale, it was revealed that a highly
secret and sacred language form of the Lardil peoples of Mornington Island
in Queensland intriguingly contained within its structure ‘click’ tongue.108
Click tongue is radically unlike speech tongue because it centres on sound
lexicons that contain a variety of what Western ears hear as click and other
mouth movement noises. These sounds all carry specific meaning. Hale
pointed out that Lardil click language “...has click consonants, otherwise
only found in Africa”.109 In Africa these Indigenous tongues are reported to
number somewhere around 30, with 120,000 or more speakers.110 The
Indigenous click languages of Africa and Australia demonstrate the amazing
diversity of Indigenous mother tongues. They certainly demonstrate that
speech language is but a small component of the holistic entity that is
language for us Indigenous peoples.
In thinking about the remarkable diversity of language form that click
language represents I was prompted to think back on conversations about
language I had with my late second cousin Aunty Vera, who was a
Dhungutti speaker. I remember her advice about the position and movement
of tongue to create certain sound. Actually, the use of speech language was
sometimes forbidden under law/lore. A fine Warlpiri example of this can be
found in ‘Keeping Company’ an informative volume produced for health
professionals working with our peoples.111 In this volume it is made clear
ibid., p.134.
K Hale, ‘Language endangerment and the human value of linguistic diversity’ in K Hale, M Krauss,
LJ Watahomigie, AY Yamamoto, C Craig, LM Jeanne & NC England, ‘Endangered languages’
Language, vol.68, no.1, 1992, pp. 35 – 42.
109 ibid., p. 37.
110 C Cookson, ‘Linguists speak out for the dying tongues: LANGUAGE: scientists are engaged in a
race against time to research and catalogue the world's disappearing dialects’, Financial Times, 26
March 2004,
<http://0-search.proquest.com.library.sl.nsw.gov.au/docview/249489165?accountid=13902>
111 C Franks & B Curr, Keeping Company: An Inter-cultural Conversation: Irlkwatherre, Yatyarre,
Tantye/Rtantye, Ngapartji-Ngapartji, Kepenhe, Janku-Janku, 2nd edn, J Foster (ed), Spencer Gulf Rural
Health School, Whyalla, SA, 2007.
107
108
[35]
that the death of a person can precipitate the use of sign language over a set
period of time, as does avoidance law, which relates to systems of kinship
relationship that determine rules of interaction.112 I well remember my
mother and Aunty Vera talking to me about how Dhungutti avoidance
worked. I appreciate though that there is an assumption that these forms of
law are now largely defunct within our Aboriginal cultures in New South
Wales, and that therefore sign language is effectively gone. I refute this,
however, not only on the basis of spirit memory but also on the basis of
Aboriginal English, which as you will read about later significantly embodies
signing.
The use of language too can be seen in dance. There is actually a close
association between song and sound vocabularies and movement
vocabularies. Dance contains choreographed movement that can be read
and learnt from. Together these mediums enable the transmission of
knowledges such as laws/lores, histories, land ownership and ecological
data.113 For this to occur through dance, song and music each medium
must be framed within a vocabulary that enables this transmission in a
highly stable, consistent and longitudinal way. Dance is not haphazard or
free-form for us. In her study of Indigenous song Dr Jill Stubington not only
affirmed the interconnectivity between dance, music and song, she
importantly highlighted that dance and song “...are more properly regarded
as work that has to be done”.114 Whilst Stubington doesn’t see either song or
dance as a specific language per se her account of Yolŋu cultural praxis
leaves no doubt that there is a synthesis between cultural praxis and the
communication of knowledge.
In her forward to Stubington’s study Dr Marika makes plain the importance
of mediums such as song which speak to “...how we came to be here, how
we should live our lives and how we are related to the land, the plants and
animals which surround us”.115 It is clear from this just how complex the
balance is between language, cultural praxis and the teaching and learning
of knowledge. Bonnie Deegan, former Jaru Chairperson of the Kimberley
Language Resource Centre, noted in her forward to a Bardi language
dictionary that “language is vital to the culture of Aboriginal people in the
Kimberley. If language is lost then knowledge is lost – knowledge of laws,
songs, dances and bush tucker”.116 I hear in the words of Dr Marika and
ibid.
J Stubington, Singing the Land: The Power of Performance in Aboriginal Life, Currency House, NSW,
2007.
114 ibid., p.34.
115 ibid., p.vii.
116 G Aklif (compiler), Ardiyooloon Bardi Ngaanka One Arm Point Bardi Dictionary, Kimberley Language
Resource Centre, Halls Creek, WA, 1999, p.v.
112
113
[36]
Bonnie Deegan confirmation of Harrison’s conceptualisation of language as
knowledge. Indeed this has been reiterated by Indigenous Māori academics
exploring research. In reflecting upon colonisation they noted that
colonisation “led to the suppression of not only indigenous ways of knowing,
but also the languages for ‘knowing’”.117
For Martin et al. deep access into the spiritual knowledges of Māori cultures
rests upon the utility of language.118 In Western academia language tends to
be framed within a discrete discipline, but we can learn from the Māori
academic experience that Indigenous academics tend not make any such
separation. In discussing the juxtaposition between language and culture
and the issue of preservation Indigenous Navajo academic Dr Timothy
Begaye observed that “according to many Native people, preservation is a
complex challenge because language and culture are broad and inclusive
concepts that are better understood as inclusive terms...”.119 This then
brings me to the matter of how we Indigenous peoples intellectualise
culture. For us language and culture come together as the embodiment of
‘country’ which defines our ways of seeing the world [our worldview], our
ways of knowing the world, our ways of doing within the world, and our
ways of being within the world.
Begaye’s study of Indigenous American perspective on language and culture
similarly revealed that there was a tendency among the Indigenous teachers
he interviewed to associate the concept of culture with the past.120 Culture
was also variously highlighted as being synonymous with foundational
customs, beliefs and values. It is true that when we talk about culture that
we turn back towards our foundational ways of knowing, doing and being.
Again in Western academia history separates the past from the present, but
for us there is no such division. Our foundational ways give us our means to
make sense of our contemporary place within the world. This much is
evident in the words of Ridgeway and Dodson, which I introduced to you
earlier on. It might help to think of this in terms of a psycho-spiritual
compass which points the way for us to understand and explain. It gives us
continuity with our spirit Elders who remain spiritually living for us.
I have mentioned spirituality quite often, but I am yet to define what I mean.
For me personally spirituality is so intrinsic to my being that it is almost
mundane, and I know it to be so for most other Indigenous peoples. It is not,
R Martin, C McMurchy-Pilkington, T Tamati, N Martin & H Dale, 'He Rangahau ki tä Te Huarahi
Mäori Rangahau Kaupapa Mäori: Reflections on research methodologies for Mäori contexts’,
NZARE/AARE Conference, 1 Dec 2003,p.2 < http://www.aare.edu.au/03pap/mcm03411.pdf>
118 ibid.
119 T Begaye, ‘Native teacher understanding of culture as a concept for curricula inclusion’, Wicazo SA
Review, vol. 22, no.1, Spring, 2007, p.41.
120 ibid, p.48.
117
[37]
as many would suppose, a matter of religion, because Indigenous
spirituality works well beyond belief.121 It is, as I’ve already noted, but
emphasise again, the basis of country, and as such it is our ontology, our
epistemology and axiology. Kipuri in reiterating Indigenous Opaskwayak
Cree academic Dr Shawn Wilson expressed our spirituality as defining our
relationships with our “...environment as custodians of the land; it helps
construct social relationships, gives meaning, purpose and hope to life. It is
not separated but is an integral, infused part of the whole in the indigenous
worldview”.122 In thinking about belief, the departure is that we don’t
‘practice’ our spirituality as religious ritual in the Western sense; we think
it, speak it, sing it, sign it, dance it, and image it so that we live it.
My purpose with this section has been to demonstrate the major points of
departure between our Indigenous ways of knowing language and culture
and non-Indigenous ways of knowing language and culture. These points of
departure are most stark in terms of the sheer magnitude of what
Indigenous language is and what it entails. Indigenous speech language
turns out to be but one aspect of a much wider body of language, which in
turn sits within a complex system of spirit knowledge that is essentially
culture. To reinforce what culture for us is I defer to the words of Ngalu
Patsy Bedford of the Bunuba peoples who said:
I think when we say ‘culture’ a lot of people say, ‘Oh, well, that’s when you go
Law time or Barurru time.’ But culture means more than that. It’s how you live,
how you talk, how you just present yourself. That is all part of culture. What
you eat. So, our young people these days don’t realize culture not only means
ceremonial times. Land, language and culture can never be apart because that
is the core that lifts up who we are”. 123
In my earlier reflection upon my own Indigenous being I posed a question
along the line of - how can my cultural identity be so strong when I don’t
have my full mother tongues? This question is particularly applicable to us
the Aboriginal peoples of New South Wales because of our diminished access
to our full mother tongues; one of many legacies we now live with because of
the impositions of colonisation. I would think though, based on what you
have just read in the preceding section, that you would be inclined to
conclude that the bond between language and culture is so strong for us
Indigenous peoples that one cannot possibly survive without the other. I
want to explore this more thoroughly because I appreciate the importance of
speaking directly to the understandable confusion that we Indigenous
peoples create ourselves when we say language and culture are as one for
us, yet in cases where our languages are no longer fully there for us we still
121
122
123
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, op.cit., p.60.
ibid.
New Legend..., op.cit., p.49.
[38]
turn round and say that our cultural identity remains strong – how can we
make such a claim?
In his explanation of the relationship between language and culture
Wardhaugh noted that:
the exact nature of the relationship between language and culture has
fascinated, and continues to fascinate, people from a wide variety of
backgrounds. That there should be some kind of relationship between sounds,
words, and syntax of a language and the ways in which speakers of that
language experience the world and behave in it seems so obvious as to be a
truism.124
It is no doubt a truism for those peoples around the globe whose languages
have not been fragmented or lost. We can certainly know that there is a deep
interconnectivity between language, cultural knowledge and cultural praxis.
The manner in which an individual person sees and experiences the world is
not neutral of this tripartite structure. As I’ve already highlighted in the
degree to which Indigenous languages are complete informs the degree to
which Indigenous cultural knowledges are complete and this does in turn
inform how cultural praxis manifests.
Even so, can we automatically assume that fragmented or lost language,
knowledge and cultural praxis means fragmented or lost cultural identity?
Professor of Social Sciences and Linguistics Joshua A. Fishman who is well
known and respected within his fields, and enthusiastically referenced,
looked into the heart of this very issue in a speech he gave in 1994 at the
Stabilizing Indigenous Languages Symposium. I feel it worthwhile to bounce
my own discussion of this against the thoughts of Fishman who significantly
addressed the key question ‘what do you lose when you lose your
language?’,125 which was coincidently the title of his paper. In addressing
this key question Fishman pondered the bond between language and
culture.126 By looking into the dynamics of this bond I can more
meaningfully open up how the relationship between culture and cultural
identity can be known, and thereby discover the degree of co-dependency
existent between the two.
Fishman begins his analysis of his key question by reflecting upon the
experience of the Indigenous peoples of America, who like us here in
Australia were subjected to relentless coloniser campaigns to eradicate
language and cultural praxis. He asked:
What does the country lose when it loses individuals who are comfortable with
themselves, cultures that are authentic to themselves, the capacity to secure
R Wardhaugh, op.cit., p.215.
Fishman, ‘What do you lose when you lose your language’, paper adapted from a speech given at
the Stabilizing Indigenous Languages Symposium 16 November, 1994, 1996, available from ERIC –
Education Resources Information Centre, EDRS document no: ED395 732.
126 ibid, p.3.
124
125JA
[39]
sensitivity, wisdom, and some kind of recognition that one has purpose in life?
What is lost to a country that encourages people to lose their direction in life? 127
I can’t help but feel spiritually emotional reading Fishman’s questions, since
these trigger within me a train of thought that leads me to stop a while and
meditate upon what our forebears went through as they were made to give
up mother tongue of country. The spiritual confusions alone would have
been monumental. I can see though the expediency of these questions in
enabling Fishman to work towards identifying what exactly is lost when
language is lost, or to my mind forcibly disconnected.
Fishman begins by identifying that an “indexical relationship” is lost. He
explains this by saying that “a language long associated with the culture is
best able to express most easily, most exactly, most richly, with more
appropriate over-tones the concerns, artifacts, values, and interests of that
culture”.128 It seems to me that the crux of what is being said here is that
there is a distinct cultural context to language, a context that may either
vanish or appreciably dilute when language is lost. This may well be the
case to a certain extent, although what struck me about Fishman’s words
was his reference to values, because I have long maintained that the
essential ideologies that underpin a society’s core values are more readily an
informing agent of cultural identity than either language or cultural praxis
alone. My point being that in reference to our Indigenous values, here in
Australia in cases where our languages have been lost or damaged, our core
values have remained strong.
In my doctoral thesis I made a particular study of our values, noting that
our core values align with the social, cultural and political spheres of
being.129 I based this contention largely upon personal reflection about my
own cultural being, though clearly I had considerable wider community
knowledge and experience driving my theorisation as well. In surveying
Indigenous views on our values I came across an informative point of view
put forward by Indigenous academic Professor Paul Hughes. Hughes noted
“we do have a long history and over that time we developed a social
structure and attitudes to life that exist today. Even in the Aboriginal people
of a highly urbanized area such as the east coast of New South Wales these
traditional values and attitudes exist”.130 The point that our ‘traditional’
values remain continuous regardless of our degree of cultural dispossession
was what I found to be most important in Hughes assertion.
ibid, pp.2-3.
ibid.,p.3.
129 ST Williams, op.cit., pp.32–42.
130P Hughes as cited in ST Williams, ibid., p.35.
127
128
[40]
Even without language and the deeper layers of cultural praxis we remain
highly collective, highly spiritual peoples, unswervingly motivated toward
autonomy. This may sound like a sweeping over generalisation, but I defend
my claim on the basis of my observation that we consistently project
evidence of adherence to a culturally driven shared Indigenous worldview; a
worldview that appears common to all of us Indigenous peoples within
Australia, but I also sense is common with Indigenous peoples
internationally. You will have noticed, for instance, in my writing perpetual
reference to us Indigenous peoples as spirit peoples. I do this because we all
maintain ontology’s centred within spiritual ways of knowing and thinking.
Our ontology’s similarly embed us within a spiritual matrix of relational
systems which weave us into vast extended kinship networks encompassing
all around us: life form and spirit form. Autonomy represents our fellowship
too because it speaks for all of us contemporarily as the basis of our fight for
cultural sovereignty.
Confirmation of what I am contending isn’t particularly hard to find. Kipuri
makes clear our spiritual valuing in her observation “Indigenous peoples
have rich and diverse cultures based on a profound spiritual relationship
with their land and natural resources”.131 She highlights our collectivism in
the statement “another salient characteristic of indigenous cultures is that
they are based on a collective perspective”.132 Autonomy comes through also
in the assertion "for indigenous peoples, globalization is a mixed blessing. It
both constitutes an unprecedented opportunity for empowerment and an
unprecedented threat to the autonomy of their cultures”.133 Throughout the
literature predicated to explaining us the overarching discourse of who we
are at a global level is the same – we are spiritual, we are collective and we
value highly our right to empowerment and self-determination as a matter of
cultural autonomy.
In juxtaposing the idea of a shared Indigenous worldview against the sheer
diversity of cultures comprising our Indigenous worlds, I do of course come
up against the fundamental conundrum - if we all belong to different
cultures, have different languages, different cultural knowledge ways and
cultural praxis how can we share commonality in worldview? This
conundrum actually flags tensions within Indigenous and non-Indigenous
academia because there is a confusion in how we assert on the one hand
our distinctness and in doing so reject the generality of indigeneity, but then
on the other hand turn around and use without reservation the collective
identifiers ‘Indigenous’ or ‘Aboriginal’ and make statements centred on
131
132
133
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, op.cit., p.52.
ibid.
ibid, p.70.
[41]
unified being. I can certainly be seen as doing this, and it could be
construed as somewhat incongruous, but it is not, because of worldview,
because of values and indeed because of the structural and content
similarities in our knowledge ways.
This matter actually comes up regularly within research literature that takes
us as ‘subject’. A case in point can be seen in Associate Professor Brian
Bishop’s abridged research article on the psychological importance of
community, which was co-authored by Simon Colquhoun and Gemma
Johnson. These authors certainly note the dangers inherent in making
generalisations concerning us, but they also point out that research does
reveal meaningful similarities between us, in this instance in terms of how
we conceptualise community.134 In taking community as an example, how
we conceptualise community relates directly with how we conceptualise
cultural identity and enact cultural identity. There is an overarching values
relationship here. In the case of Bishop et al.’s informants, who have an
operational skin based kinship structure, or for Indigenous persons like
myself who have awareness of the deeper layers of kinship section, of even
those of us who do not, we still nonetheless have in common, regardless of
identifiable differences, a tremendous sense of valuing of collectivism as
extended family.
Through my analysis of collectivism I can see that cultural identity,
although informed very directly by language and culture, nonetheless seems
to have a more overarching presence. In his definitional synopsis of identity
Professor Kevin Robins suggested that identity comes down to a matter of
perception.135 Identity it seems is a phenomenon of how an individual
perceives their psychological persona. This persona includes cognitively
embedded data about an individual’s social world. Values are a core part of
this data. Values play an important role in the shape of identity both at an
individual level and a social level. At the social level values are cohesive;
they are a fundamental part of what creates societal homogeneity. I
described values myself as being “...cognitively internalised, socially
orienting referents”.136 I further highlighted their role in signalling
“...difference between societies reflecting ideological orientations”.137
In returning back to Fishman, what I found thought provoking in his
analysis of ‘what is lost when language is lost?’ is the issue of whether or not
the fundamental social context of our identity, our ideological orientations,
B Bishop, S Colquhoun & G Johnson, ‘Psychological sense of community: An Australian Aboriginal
experience’, Journal of Community Psychology, vol.34, no.1, 2006, pp.1-6.
135 K Robins ‘identity’ inT Bennett et al., op.cit., pp. 172 - 175.
136 ST Williams, op.cit., p.31.
137 ibid., p.32.
134
[42]
dissipates when our mother tongues are damaged or gone. In thinking about
this I reflected upon the thoughts of Raymond Williams concerning his own
Welsh mother tongue. In a posthumous collection of Williams’ thought a
very poignant discussion can be found that looks at what occurs for Welsh
people who, because of loss of Welsh mother tongue, express using English
language.138 Williams argued that the output of Welsh literature “...is at
once autonomous and important”139. He is also resolutely determined that:
The work of the English-language writers of industrial South Wales is
unmistakably indigenous; its English in tone and rhythm is not an English
literary style. There seems good justification, in these writers and in the
everyday speech of the valleys, for the recent significant assertion, from within
what has been the ‘nationalist’ tendency, that English is a Welsh language. A
distinctive culture is using that diverse and flexible language for its own
unmistakably native writing and speech.140
This is how I feel about my own writing. Yes, I am using English, but not for
the transference of English context or English ideas, I am using English
because I have been deprived of my own mother tongues, but I am
communicating through the spirit-mind of my Indigenous cultural context,
my identity, and this is unmistakable.
Whilst I find Fishman’s arguments compelling I wonder, citing values as a
prime example, if perhaps it is not always the case that ideationally founded
outlooks usually couched within language are completely lost. Fishman
moves on to say the single most important entity vulnerable in language loss
is culture itself. He says that “...most of the culture is in the language and
expressed in the language” and that on this basis “...you are losing all those
things that are essentially the way of life, the way of thought, the way of
valuing, and the human reality that you are talking about”.141 In reflecting
back upon Harrison’s discussion of knowledge loss as a result of language
loss, it is hard to refute Fishman. When I then extrapolate this to what I
wrote about how we Indigenous peoples conceptualise language and culture
it is all the more so. The difficulty is not so much the fact that language loss
and culture loss go hand in hand; it is whether or not they then signal
identity loss.
Is it possible that whilst cultural knowledge may be lost that our ways of
thinking and knowing, for instance our ways of valuing and philosophising,
are more resistant to loss? Fishman moves on to cite the “symbolic
relationship” of language in terms of what is lost when language is lost.142
He explains that language literally “stands” for a culture as a whole and that
138
139
140
141
142
R Williams, What I Came to Say, Hutchinson Radius, London, 1989, pp. 62–68.
ibid, p.67.
ibid., p.62.
JA Fishman, op.cit.
ibid., p.3.
[43]
as such it represents culture within the mind. This is an interesting
observation because if language as a discrete entity wholly represents
culture within the mind, what do values and the like do, and what then is
the interplay between culture and cultural identity. No doubt there is much
to ponder on this, but in relating this to my own Indigenous life being I am
inclined to see that the symbolic qualities of language are not altogether
lost. I say this because there is an interesting aspect to the symbolism of
language which does have great bearing on cultural identity for us and that
is the relationship between language and land.
In Dr Marika’s submission on language she noted that language and land go
hand in hand. I would say they do so, on two fronts. The first is as I’ve
discussed already, the synthesis between language and knowledge which in
the Indigenous context is bound to country. The second relates to how
language literally signifies country for us; how it names the identity of our
families and communities in relation to country and the boundaries of
country typically thought of as cultural nationhood. Bishop et al. observed
in their study that interviewees uniformly focused understanding of
community on “...the theme of language, or more specifically, language
groups”. 143 So community was not only seen as collectively founded, it was
seen as collectively inclusive of land. This is common to Indigenous peoples
across the board; that is we all see ourselves, our identity, as part of kinship
with land.
Professor Alan Rumsey’s earlier consideration of the interplay between
language and territory in reference to us provides a constructive clarification
with regard to the amalgamation between kinship, language, land and
identity.144 Rumsey realised that for us language is situated within country;
that is that language is an actual part of country, instilled by our spirit
Elders and that as kin of country we have a relationship with that language,
but we don’t own it, it owns us.145 Rumsey summarised this by stating that
“the links between peoples and languages are secondary links, established
through the grounding of both in the landscape”.146 Bishop et al. likewise
noted that “the land is often referred to as a parent, sometimes father, and
more often mother” and that “from these spiritual links with the land flow
relationships between members of the group and as part of these
B Bishop et al. op. cit., p.4.
A Rumsey, ‘Language and territoriality in Aboriginal Australia’, in M Walsh & C Yallop (eds),
Language and culture in Aboriginal Australia, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra, ACT, 1993, pp. 191–
206.
145 ibid.
146 ibid., p.206.
143
144
[44]
relationships, the language and skin groups of each member give Aboriginal
people their associative bonds”.147
Kipuri emphasised that for us “dichotomies such as nature vs. culture do
not exist...” in that we understand our being as not “...outside the realm of
nature, but as part of nature...”.148 Clearly Kipuri understands as I do that
our kinship with country remains powerful; we still have this spirit
association deep within us even when language is not present or minimal.
Language is never really absent from us because our identity is directly
expressed and symbolised within the language of country – I am Dhungutti,
I am Dharawal. It is through knowing these language identifiers that I
anchor myself as a Dhungutti person and a Dharawal person. I know my
relationship to country on the basis of where my languages remain
spiritually located. Kinship thus centres us within the country of our
languages, so our languages give us cultural identity; it is an inseparable
fusion. The centeredness of language within country can be highly complex
and in many instances involve multiple dialects under broader cultural
collectives, but the theme is the same whatever the language complex is; the
geographical place of language names our identity.
Fishman, having noted lexical loss, cultural loss and symbolic loss,
poignantly turned around and said that these were merely academic
observations.149 He then moved on to discuss what is implicated in language
loss at a more emotional level, and it is here that Fishman’s work becomes a
particularly meaningful source for understanding the complex nature of
Indigenous cultural identity. Fishman highlighted the sanctity of language,
the kinship of language, and the responsibility of language as factors in
language loss.150 Although I’ve just discussed the kinship dimensions of
language it is worth recording that Fishman was very mindful of the bonding
quality of language: “we are tied to each other through the language”.151 This
bonding quality underpins an inviolable relationship with language; a form
of reverence for language that we hold because we know language as given
to us by our creators, our spirit Elders. Greymorning affirmed that “...we
have been given something sacred, and we recognize its sacredness...”.152
We have not lost this.
In reading Fishman, what struck me most vividly about his understanding
of language loss in relation to culture was what he had to say about
147
148
149
150
151
152
ibid., p.5.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, op.cit., p.52.
JA Fishman, op.cit, p.4.
ibid, pp. 4-5.
ibid., p.5.
S Greymorning, loc.cit.
[45]
responsibility. Fishman very astutely observed that “another thing people
tell you about their language is that they have a sense of responsibility for
it”.153 That is certainly true of us Indigenous peoples, we not only feel this
responsibility keenly we sense it in a way that perpetuates our relationship
with our languages even in the face of loss. I will talk more about this in
Chapter 3, but it is worth noting here that responsibility is highly political
for us and motivated by the wider Indigenous project of decolonisation. I was
touched though by Fishman’s confronting alignment of language loss with
the loss of a family member.154 Certainly this captures the emotional
intensity of loss for us, but it clouds the knowing of our cultural identity
which is stronger and gives us the impetus to challenge the pain of loss.
In bringing the matter of cultural identity into focus from our Aboriginal
perspective here in New South Wales, the multi-faceted, multi-layered and
multi-stratified language forms that we once all spoke, sung, signed, danced
and imaged with fluency remain omnipresent in our spirit memories, even
today, even when we have suffered language loss and culture loss. We
maintain our cultural identity through the very name of our cultures,
through the kinship to language that these names assert, through our
reverence of language as cultural knowledge and cultural praxis and
through our unending feeling of responsibility to language and the
relationships that are interwoven into this because language denotes land;
our country. So what we don’t lose when we lose language is our cultural
identity. Does the ability to speak mother tongue matter? - YES, but not
because we have lost knowing who we are, it is because mother tongue
underpins our spiritual responsibility to country.
The charge that our lack of fluency in our own mother tongues makes us
less Aboriginal is utterly unfounded. It seems though that understanding
the importance of language as a strengthening agent of identity is
sometimes morphed into an assertion that speech language is the primary
indicator of Indigenous identity, meaning that Indigenous identity cannot be
fully legitimated without it. There is also an additional assertion within
Indigenous sovereignty discourse itself that suggests that only first language
can adequately voice Indigenous self-determination and self-governance155.
The argument here is that coloniser languages are not appropriate for our
expression of our sovereignty. Whilst it can be argued that these assertions
meaningfully recognise the power and value of our languages, on the other
hand they also, unintentionally I feel, erode the identity premise of so many
153JA
Fishman, op. cit, p.5.
ibid.
155M Viatori & G Usbigua, ‘Speaking sovereignty: Indigenous languages and self-determination’,
Wicazo SA Review, vol.22, no.2, 2007, pp. 7-21.
154
[46]
of us, which is embedded within cultural concepts that work beyond the
confines of the utilisation of speech language, and need to because of
language decimation.
In their article on the Zapara peoples of Ecuador Maximilian Viatori and
Gloria Usbigua highlight this by noting that “many indigenous activists,
community leaders, and educators in the Americas claim that selfdetermination cannot be articulated using the languages of their
colonizers”156, but they also point out how problematic this assumption is
for those of us who do not have full mother tongues. Does this mean that we
are less recognisably Indigenous without the benefit of full ‘authentic’
language? Viatori and Usbigua assert that:
These questions raise several issues with the use of language to delineate
officially recognized sovereign indigenous nations. First, this equation is
founded on Western colonial misconceptions of indigenous languages as
indicators of an indigenous group's "authenticity"- the stereotyping of
indigenous culture as unchanging and unaltered by the pressures of modern
capitalist society...Second, this discourse establishes that valid Indians are only
those who speak a language that is distinct from "Western" society . 157
It turns out that whilst language and culture are virtually synonymous
cultural identity is far larger because it is so deeply and profoundly the
‘brain’ of our cultural persona. So long as our cognition, our emotion and
our socialisation are embedded within the spirit being of country our
cultural identity will survive and continue to breathe within us. That,
however, is not enough for us, it never has been. It is a matter of survival
that our forebears, and ourselves, have maintained our grip hold on
whatever remains for us, and we engage within the spirit of this so well that
it gives us strength of identity. Notwithstanding this, we are serious about
language loss and culture loss because we understand that to have our
speech languages, sound languages, song languages, sign languages,
movement languages and image languages means to be more culturally
holistic again within the richness of our foundational spirit realms and spirit
communication realms.
156
157
ibid., p.13.
ibid, p.11.
[47]
“Why not just admit that these languages have been intentionally suffocated or shamed out of
existence, and thereby acknowledge the physical and psychological violence committed against
their speakers by colonizers and nation-states alike?”
Professor Lois Meyer, Julianna Kirwin & Erin Tooher
Chapter 3 – Language, Culture and Protection
3.1 The World’s Indigenous Languages and Cultures
Thus far I have examined what language and culture are and I’ve explored
the complex juxtaposition between language, culture and cultural identity.
In all of this I have taken a collective approach referring to us primarily as
Indigenous, but I have not been more specific. For me the storying language
and culture naturally begins with yarning language and culture. Now that I
have attended to this it is time for me to be more precise about who we are.
However, before I move on to discuss our cultural geography I want to clarify
what it is to be Indigenous. As you will have gathered from all that you’ve
read thus far the term Indigenous stands as a useful unifying descriptor for
the ‘first peoples’ of a given country or continent. Interestingly though the
United Nations, who is a powerful force behind the assertion of Indigenous
human rights, hasn’t actually adopted a formal definition of what it is to be
Indigenous. They have done so out of deference to our fundamental right to
create for ourselves our own definitions of our indigeneity.158
Even so, the United Nations does point to a “working definition” formulated
by Jose R. Martinez Cobo which reads:
Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a
historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed
on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the
societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at
present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop
and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic
identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with
their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system. 159
This is actually a fairly well rounded definition because it sweeps within it
the essence of core factors that we primarily cite when identifying ourselves
as Indigenous or Aboriginal. These are:


our ongoing connectedness to our lands because of our ancestral
relatedness that makes us First Nations peoples of these lands,
our experience of invasion, colonisation and historical subjugation,
our status as cultural minorities within broader contemporary nation
states.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, The Concept of Indigenous Peoples,
workshop on data collection and disaggregation for Indigenous peoples, New York, 19–21 January
2004, <http:www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/.../workshop_data_background.doc>
159 ibid.
158
[48]
Although all three factors may not uniformly apply to all cultural nations or
peoples who identify as Indigenous they do sit well with the majority of us
both internationally and nationally, and they certainly provide me with my
spiritual bond and sense of brotherhood that underpins why I use the term
Indigenous.
So who identifies as Indigenous? Well, the United Nation estimates that we
number around 370 million peoples worldwide, yet we only account for 6%
of the world’s population.160 Our country’s, that is our spirit homelands, are
located throughout Africa, the Arctic, Asia, Australia, Europe, the Pacific,
Central America, North America and South America. We remain present,
though not always rightfully recognised by those who seek to dominate our
territories, in virtually every continent on planet Earth. Further, we all have
our own unique cultural language names for our distinct cultural identities.
By way of example only, we are the San of Africa, the Inuit of the Arctic
region, the Ainu of Japan in the Asian region, the Wiradjuri of Australia, the
Sámi of Europe, the Māori of New Zealand in the Pacific region, the Mayan
of Central America, the Navajo of North America and the Zapara of South
America. It would literally take pages upon end to create a full list of exactly
who we are and even then there would be a great risk that such a list would
be incomplete.
The image I want to affirm, and encourage you to form, is one of an
incredibly vast and complex network of distinct cultural identities and
nationhood’s that absolutely exist alongside the conventional Western
geographical images that have been created as human maps of the world.
These maps invariably leave our territories unidentified and therefore leave
us unrecognised and under-acknowledged. In terms of individual statistical
accounts of us, it is difficult to locate complete, reliable or up-to-date
statistical data, often because dominating nation states do not want to give
us formal credence for political reasons, or otherwise feel that it is
unnecessary to do so. For example, Japan hadn’t been in the habit of
officially identifying within its census the Ainu peoples, though it now
recognises the Indigenous status of the Ainu, but only began to do so in
2008.161 As for numbers, it appears that in the Hokkaido region of Japan,
where many Ainu live, that they number 23,782 though this figure is
believed to be an under estimation.162 Whatever the case is, it is clear that
the Ainu represent only a very small percentage of Japan’s population.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples,
op.cit., p.8.
161 ‘Historic move to recognise the Ainu’, Weekend Australian, 7 June 2008, from Australia/New
Zealand Reference Centre, EBSCOhost.
162 T Onai, Living Conditions and Consciousness of Present-day Ainu: Report on the2008 Hokkaido Ainu
Living Conditions Survey, Center for Ainu & Indigenous Studies, Hokkaido University, Japan, 2010.
160
[49]
It is relatively common to find that we represent small minorities in national
populations, though Papua/New Guinea springs to mind as an exception
because virtually the entire national population is Indigenous. In South
America Bolivia likewise stands out as an exception in the Indigenous world
with the national census apparently reporting that Indigenous peoples
number above 60% of the national population, whilst Indigenous peoples
account for an impressive 40% of the Guatemalan population.163 That said
what I find worrying about the Indigenous peoples of Central and South
America is the apparent trend that “...the indigenous themselves feel the
need to hide their real ethnic and linguistic affiliations, among other reasons
to defend themselves from the racism and discrimination that has yet to be
overcome...” and even more disturbingly the thought that “...state officials
and census takers do whatever they can to make sure the number of
indigenous decreases with each count”.164
It is a reality that many Indigenous peoples across the globe remain
dominated. Domination ranges from active state sanctioned suppression
through to situations where minority peoples find themselves struggling for
cultural autonomy against an imposing cultural force. This is the case
within the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, who are all
dominant Western nations who have struggling minority Indigenous
populations. In the United States the Indigenous population has been
calculated at 2,447,989 as at 2001,165 though it is expected that more
recent census data yet to be broken down will reveal a larger figure. This
sounds like a high number but it is not when you consider that it amounts
to .87% of their national population.166 In Canada as at 2006 the Inuit, First
Nations and Metis populations combined were 1,172,790 which amounts to
4% of the Canadian national family. 167 New Zealand is significantly different
in that its Māori population may only be 565,329 as at 2006, but that
accounted for 14.6% of national numbers.168
In Australia according to our 2006 census we were estimated to number a
mere 517,200 peoples or 2.5% of our total national population.169 More
recent census data won’t be available until 2012, and I expect that when it
L Meyer & BM Alvarado (eds), New World of Indigenous Resistance: Noam Chomsky and Voices from
North, South and Central America, City Light Books, 2010, p.201.
164 ibid., pp.201-202.
165 SU Ogunwole, We the People: American Indians and Alaska Natives in the United States, Census
2000 Special Reports, CENSR-28, US Census Bureau, 2006, p.2.
166 ibid.
167 Statistics Canada, Aboriginal Peoples in Canada in 2006: Inuit, Metis and First Nations, Census
2006, Catalogue no.97-558, Statistics Canada, Ontario, Canada, 2008, p.6.
168 Statistics New Zealand Tatauranga Aotearoa, QuickStats about Maori, Statistics New Zealand,
2006, Revised 27 March 2007.
169 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Population Characteristics, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Australians, 2006, Cat. No. 4713.0,Reissued 4 May 2010, ABS, Canberra, p.16.
163
[50]
is released that this figure will increase, though not drastically. A state by
state breakdown reveals a far more interesting picture about us because it is
commonly assumed that the vast majority of us live in the Northern
Territory. In actuality it is here in New South Wales that the highest
Indigenous population can be found with 139,994 of us being Aboriginal,
5,083 of us are Torres Strait Islanders, and a further 3,101 of us are both
Aboriginal and the Torres Strait Islander.170 What I find compelling in this
figure is that we have some 8,104 peoples with Torres Strait Islander
identity. This is significant and something that we should not ignore
particularly in terms of education, where there is a tendency to assume that
we are all only Aboriginal.
The figures I have quoted thus far only give broad populations numbers,
they show absolutely no indication of who we are in terms of our specific
cultural identities. In looking at the United States, Canada, New Zealand
and Australia it can be seen that there are literally hundreds of distinct
Indigenous cultural nationhood’s, language groups and identities, but do
keep in mind that these figures expand enormously when the rest of the
world is taken into consideration. The United States for instance formally
recognises 565 Indigenous tribes, as well as the Indigenous peoples of
Hawaii.171 In Canada the 2006 census revealed that 60 different First
Nations languages are known to be spoken, which gives some indication of
the likely number of actual different Indigenous cultures.172 The Inuit are
additional to this. New Zealand on the other hand is quite unique in having
only 1 overarching cultural nation, but there are nonetheless “...whanau,
hapu, iwi (extended family, sub-tribal groupings and tribe)...” 173 divisions.
Here in Australia it is widely accepted that there were some 250 language
groups, with a further estimated 600 plus language dialect communities.174
These figures, however, should only ever be thought of as approximate. A
quick scan of literature can reveal significant variations in these figures, for
example Bishop et al. suggests a figure of 270 distinct language groups with
an additional 600 - 700 dialects.175 It really does depend upon what source
you happen to consult. The Encyclopaedia of Aboriginal Australia, which
ibid.
Announcement of U.S. Support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples, 2010, <http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/153223.pdf>
172 Statistics Canada, op.cit., p.8.
173 LT Smith, op. cit., p.109.
174 E Bourke, ‘Australia’s first peoples: Identity and population’ in C Bourke, E Bourke & B Edwards
(eds) Aboriginal Australia: An Introductory Reader in Aboriginal Studies, 2nd edn, University of
Queensland Press, St Lucia, QLD, 1998, pp.38 -55; &
Australian Human Rights Commission, Social Justice Report 2009: Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Commissioner, Australian Human Rights Commission, Sydney, NSW,2009,
<http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/sj_report/sjreport09/chap3.html>
175 B Bishop et al., op.cit., p.5.
170
171
[51]
remains a significant reference about us despite its early 1994 publication
date, provides a series of regional maps that are considered quite plausible.
In these maps some 30 distinct Aboriginal cultural nations are identified
along the south east coast region of New South Wales, while the Riverine
Region, which sweeps in a very large part of inland New South Wales, but
also the border region with Queensland and the tip of Victoria, suggests
another 46 cultural nations.176
I acknowledge that the ethno-geographical maps these figures emanate from
remain contentious for some Indigenous communities, but even so they do
serve a useful purpose in highlighting that we are not as homogenous as
might be supposed apropos our specific cultural identities. Despite this
amazing diversity, as I’ve explained already, there are remarkable
experiential and values similarities between us nationally and
internationally. Foreign colonial domination and hegemonic cultural
subjugation are themes that arise time and time again within Indigenous
discourse across the globe. In his forward to the United Nations report on
the state of our Indigenous being Mr. Sha Zukang, noted that:
Indigenous peoples are custodians of some of the most biologically diverse
territories in the world. They are also responsible for a great deal of the world’s
linguistic and cultural diversity, and their traditional knowledge has been and
continues to be an invaluable resource that benefits all of mankind [sic].
Yet, indigenous peoples continue to suffer discrimination, marginalization,
extreme poverty and conflict. Some are being dispossessed of their traditional
lands as their livelihoods are being undermined. Meanwhile, their belief
systems, cultures, languages and ways of life continue to be threatened,
sometimes even by extinction.177
One of the most poignant well rounded recent volumes reporting who we are
and what our circumstances are is ‘The State of the World’s Indigenous
Peoples’ which was published in 2010.178 I’ve already referenced this volume
often and will continue to do so, but I take a moment now to stress its value
as a salient literature source because this publication story’s exceptionally
well the startling parallels between us Indigenous peoples in terms of our
educational position, our contemporary health, social and economic
wellbeing, and the state of our languages and cultures. The state of our
languages and cultures in particular, as you will have gathered from
Chapter 1, may at best be termed catastrophic. Indeed in one source I have
consulted it has been described as apocalyptic.179 Over the course of my
reading for this research study I have consulted many sources and
The Encyclopaedia of Aboriginal Australia, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra, ACT, 1994, p.946 &
p.1009.
177 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples,
op.cit., p.v.
178 ibid.
179 D Hallett, MJ Chandler & CE Lalonde, ‘Aboriginal language knowledge and youth suicide’,
Cognitive Development, vol.22, 2007, pp.392–399.
176
[52]
invariably they use similar terminologies. The most practical and telling
synopsis for me, however, came from Harrison’s study of the world’s
endangered languages.
Harrison contrasted the loss of the world’s language diversity, Indigenous
and non-Indigenous alike, to the loss of animals, fish and plants by likening
language loss to bio-diversity and species loss, an issue that many are
passionate about. He wrote that comparatively the loss rates are “fish 5%”,
“plants 8%”, “birds 11%”, “mammals 18%”, whilst language loss towers over
this at a staggering “40%”.180 This unequivocally means that the world’s
languages are vanishing at a colossal rate and it is certain that our
Indigenous languages are a huge part of what can only be described as a
global disaster. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation [UNESCO] have certainly recognised the urgency of this
disaster on their ‘Endangered Languages’ website which categorically
highlights that:
It is estimated that, if nothing is done, half of 6000 plus languages spoken today
will disappear by the end of this century. With the disappearance of unwritten
and undocumented languages, humanity would lose not only a cultural wealth
but also important ancestral knowledge embedded, in particular, in indigenous
languages.181
If we look at the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia for
evidence of Indigenous language loss the enormity of what is being said
more broadly at the international level becomes all too real. Professor Teresa
L McCarty for instance reported that only 175 Indigenous languages are
current in the United States, and that only 20% of these 175 are being
passed on to new speakers.182 McCarty quoted one source as saying that
125 of these 175 languages are highly likely to disappear because of the age
of speakers. She notes “in a very real sense, Indigenous language loss is
terminal”.183 In his essay published in 1992, well before McCarty’s article,
Professor Michael Krauss had brought attention to Indigenous Alaskan and
Soviet languages noting that of 50 languages 45 were “moribund”, a term
that basically means on the brink of extinction.184
Krauss more optimistically noted that in the 1990’s in Alaska specifically the
Central Yupik Eskimo and Siberian Yupik Eskimo languages were being
KD Harrison, op.cit., p.7.
UNESCO, Endangered Languages
<http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/cultural-diversity/languages-andmultilingualism/endangered-languages/>
182 TL McCarty, ‘Revitalising Indigenous languages in homogenising times’, Comparative Education,
vol.39, no.2, 2003, pp.147-163.
183 ibid., p.148.
184 M Krauss, ‘The world’s languages in crisis’, in K Hale, M Krauss, LJ Watahomigie, AY Yamamoto,
C Craig, LM Jeanne & NC England, ‘Endangered languages’ Language, vol.68, no.1, 1992, pp. 1-10.
180
181
[53]
taught to oncoming generations.185 That sounds promising of itself, until
you realise that another 18 Indigenous Alaskan languages were not recorded
as being passed on. It is bewildering to say the least. Some years later in
2000 the Navajo peoples showed the greatest number of Indigenous
language speakers in America, followed by the Pueblo, Eskimo and Apache.
The same story can be found in many other studies to do with Indigenous
language loss in America. Most quote statistics from the 2000 national
census which shows that in Indigenous America, including Indigenous
Alaska, slightly more than 27% of the Indigenous population reported
speaking a language other than English at home, though 17.8% of this
percentage reported speaking English very well.186
Canada shows a similar downward trend. Only 25% of First Nations peoples
have indicated that they speak their own languages, and of these Cree
appears to be the strongest with approximately 87,285 speakers, followed by
Ojibway with 30,255 reported speakers.187 Inuit mother tongue rates are
impressively higher at 69%, though it is acknowledged that English is
beginning to dominate within the home.188 That concern over Indigenous
language continues to be mentioned in relatively recent literature suggests
to me that efforts to maintain and revive Indigenous languages within the
United States and Canada are yet to produce wide sweeping reversal of
language shift. The domination of English is something I will discuss more
thoroughly later, but it is a trend that shows up consistently in Indigenous
language statistics, even in New Zealand, which to my mind has one of the
best possible scenarios for Indigenous peoples to hold onto mother tongue.
In New Zealand there is one overarching Māori language, te reo Māori,
though dialects are present. According to the New Zealand 2006 national
census data 23.7% of the Māori population could speak Māori at a
conversational level.189 Broken down, this figure reveals that a ¼ of this
23.7% were aged 15 - 64, whilst just under half were 65 and over.190 A
comprehensive survey of the “health” of Māori language conducted in 2001
revealed that 42% of Māori peoples had at least some language proficiency,
though what was particularly interesting to me was the difference that was
noticed in degrees of proficiency between speaking and listening, especially
in those who identified that they had a reasonable level of skill.191 Listening
ibid., p.5.
S Ogunwole, op.cit., p.7.
187 Statistics Canada, op.cit., p.8.
188 ibid.
189 Statistics New Zealand..., op.cit.
190 ibid.
191 2001 Survey on the Health of the Maori Language, May 2002,
<http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/maori/2001-survey-on-thehealth-of-the-maori-language.aspx>
185
186
[54]
skill showed at higher rates of proficiency than actual speech rates. The
implications of this are significant because they indicate that whilst Māori
can be understood by many, it is not necessarily used as an everyday
mother tongue and that does flag danger for Māori mother tongue.
So we come now to our own country. The difference between New Zealand
and Australia couldn’t be starker. Our 2006 census data revealed that of the
517,200 of us only 52,000 of us reported speaking in our own languages192;
a staggering figure. Further, it was categorically stated that:
Of those Indigenous people who speak an Indigenous language at home, almost
three-quarters (74%) live in Very Remote Australia, with 14% living in Remote
Australia. Only 4% of Indigenous people who speak an Indigenous language live
in Major Cities. Over half (56%) of all Indigenous language speakers live in the
Northern Territory where 59% of the Indigenous population speak an Australian
Indigenous language.193
The languages of the Daly River region and Arnhem Land have the highest
speech rates, followed by the Torres Strait then Western Desert
languages.194 Distressingly, from my perspective, New South Wales together
with the Australian Capital Territory showed the highest rate of English
speech – 93%.195 I read this two ways: i. as proof positive of the hegemony of
English and ii. proof positive of the ongoing urgent need for proactive action
to redress Aboriginal language loss as an immediate priority.
In the 2009 annual report of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social
Justice Commissioner, who was Tom Calma of the Kungarakan and Iwaidja
peoples, it was reported that out of the 250 languages acknowledged to exist
within this country only 18 are known to be spoken fully by all generations,
and that only 100 languages exist in one form or another, with most being
considered endangered.196 If these statistics aren’t bewildering enough
Tom’s department goes on to corroborate that “the loss of languages in
Australia has received international attention. A significant international
study on language endangerment has singled out Australia as a place where
languages are disappearing at a faster rate than anywhere else in the
world”.197 What I want you all to keep in mind, is that these are just basic
figures based on speech languages alone, they make no account of specific
speech dialects, or indeed the myriad of other language forms that are part
of us.
The observation that our languages are in greater peril than anywhere else
in the world is not a new observation. Krauss wrote in 1992 that:
192
193
194
195
196
197
Australian Bureau of Statistics, op.cit., p.35.
ibid., p.36.
ibid., p.37.
ibid.
Australian Human Rights Commission, op.cit., p.58.
ibid.
[55]
For the rest of the world, the worst continent by far is Australia, with 90% of
250 aboriginal languages that are still spoken now moribund, most of those
VERY near extinction. It would seem that English-language dominance in the
'English-speaking world' has achieved and continues to achieve the highest
documented rate of destruction, approaching now 90%. 198
Even as general statistics these figures are extraordinarily illustrative of our
language status across the globe. For any Indigenous person they are
painful; they create within us a feeling of mourning, just as Fishman has
said. To gain a far more meaningful insight into these figures in terms of
individual general speech language’s it is possible to consult a number of
online databases. Here in Australia the Australian Institute of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Studies provides access to a number of language
resources including the informative AUSTLANG: Australian Indigenous
Languages Database199, which can be searched in all manner of ways.
A search under New South Wales on AUSTLANG reveals reference to 118
Aboriginal languages, the vast majority of which fall into the various
categories of high endangerment or non-use. In looking at my own
Dhungutti language I am told that our word list is medium, our grammar is
small and that we have a language indicator score of 0, which means that
our language is no longer fully spoken.200 My Dharawal language is likewise
recorded as having only a small word list, with a “sketch’ grammar and
again a language indicator score of 0.201 A database of this nature may not
be entirely accurate in every case, but it is certainly a very strong tool for
gaining a reasonable impression of the specific status of any of our
languages. At the international level the online version of the UNESCO Atlas
of the World’s Languages in Danger202 serves a similar purpose to
AUSTLANG, although the print version appears to be more detailed in
nature.
It is all well and good to know the statistics on language loss, but we have to
ask ourselves - why are languages disappearing? Harrison says that:
Languages do not literally ‘die’ or go ‘extinct’, since they are not living
organisms. Rather, they are crowded out by bigger languages. Small tongues get
abandoned by their speakers, who stop using them in favour of a more
dominant, more prestigious, or more widely known tongue. We lack an
appropriate technical term to describe people abandoning complex systems of
knowledge like language. So we rely upon metaphors, calling in ‘language
death’, ‘language shift’, ‘threatened languages’, ‘extinction’, ‘last words’, or
‘vanishing voices’.203
M Krauss, op.cit.
AUSTLANG, <http://austlang.aiatsis.gov.au/disclaimer.php>
200 ‘Dhungutti’, ibid.
201 ‘Dharawal’, ibid.
202 UNESCO Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger,
<http://www.unesco.org/culture/languages-atlas/>
203 Harrison, op.cit., p.5.
198
199
[56]
What I want to make known is that in the case of Indigenous peoples this
abandonment is not something that we have just undertaken for the sake of
acquiring something that is allegedly ‘better’, it is something that has
happened to us. In their ‘open-ended conclusion’ to the volume ‘New world
of Indigenous Resistance’204 linguist Associate Professor Lois Meyer, together
with Julianna Kirwin and Erin Tooher provocatively questioned “why not
just admit that these languages have been intentionally suffocated or
shamed out of existence, and thereby acknowledge the physical and
psychological violence committed against their speakers by colonizers and
nation-states alike?”205.
I think any Indigenous person who reads this question would feel as I do,
that it strikes at the very truth of our experience. One of the most effective
means of achieving hegemony is not through physical violence, it’s through
psychological violence, the kind of psychological violence wherein you
bludgeon the people you want to suppress over and over again telling them
how ‘primitive’ they are, and how ‘primitive’ their languages are. Meyer et al.
say that “centuries of language domination have instilled in indigenous
peoples fear, distain, even hatred, of their own languages, stifling their
desire to speak their own tongues or pass these on to their children”.206
Even more provokingly they say “the cultural suffocation of these languages
has caused great personal and collective trauma. Parents insist that their
children learn the dominant language and forget their own, to spare them,
they say, the suffering and shame they themselves have endured.”207
The consequence of generations of hegemony over us Indigenous peoples
means that many Indigenous peoples have felt that mother tongue
acquisition must take a subordinate position to the survival need to acquire
dominant tongue. This feeling is without doubt being actively challenged
especially within Indigenous academia where arguments for research to be
freed from the ideological constraints of Western centric languages and
embedded in mother tongue are strong.208 Similarly there is a strong
Indigenous groundswell of community repossession of language, but the
damage of hegemony has been extensive. That is no doubt why the UNESCO
Atlas of Endangered Languages is able to use the language gradations –
vulnerable, definitely endangered, severely endangered, critically endangered
and extinct.209 AUSTLANG similarly uses ‘NILS’ [National Indigenous
Language Survey] endangerment grades which determine the status of
204
205
206
207
208
209
L Meyer & BM Alvarado, op.cit.
ibid., p.394
ibid., pp.394–395.
ibid., p.395.
B Chilisa, op.cit.
UNESCO, op.cit.
[57]
Australia’s Indigenous languages as – 5. strong/safe, 4. unsafe, 3. definitely
endangered, 2. severely endangered, 1. critically endangered and 0. no
longer fully spoken.210
The late Professor Stephen Wurm, who was a noted linguist, explained these
forms of terminologies thus:
A good yardstick for recognizing the level of endangerment of a language...is the
use of a threatened language in various generations of a speech community,
especially that of children and young adults. If they begin not to learn the
language anymore and 10-30 percent do not, the language is potentially
endangered. If there are only a few children speakers left, and the youngest
good speakers are young adults, the language is endangered. If the youngest
good speakers are largely past middle age, the language is seriously endangered.
If only a handful of mostly old speakers are left, the language is moribund. If no
speakers seem to be left, the language is believed extinct. 211
To an Indigenous eye and ear these types of phrases are terrifying. That we
have come to this stage though isn’t surprising given this nation’s history of
contact with us; a history that in later years sort our complete assimilation
into Western mainstream society, at the expense of our languages and
cultures. In a paper written by the extremely well-known and respected
anthropologist the late Professor A.P. Elkin in 1963 Elkin opened with an
enthusiastic endorsement of Wurm who had, according to Elkin, made a
“...well argued plea to Government and Mission representatives not to
encourage the Aborigines to drop their old culture too soon during the
period of transition before readaptation has taken place”.212
This plea may sound quite conciliatory towards us, but it was not. Elkin
went on to enthuse that this plea presented an “...indispensable means of
assisting the process of assimilation”.213 I have no desire here to reduce the
well meaning of either Elkin or Wurm in terms of my peoples; certainly Elkin
expressed his favour for integration as a more amenable alternative to
assimilation.214 Nonetheless, Elkin’s focus on values and the use of our
languages to convey Western values to us, coupled with the idea that the
preservation of our languages was worth undertaking simply because our
languages represented a useful tool for the state project of assimilation had
within it both undertones of paternalism and undertones of hegemony. The
latent message in this for us was one that said our languages were only
National Indigenous Languages Survey Report 2005, Report submitted to the Department of
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Studies in association with the Federation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Languages, Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts,
Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2005, p.125.
211 S Wurm, ‘Australia and the Pacific’, in C Moseley (ed) Encyclopedia of the World’s Endangered
Languages, Routledge, London, 2007, p.439.
212 AP Elkin, ‘Aboriginal languages and assimilation’, Oceania, vol.34, no.2, 1963, p.147.
213 ibid.
214 ibid., p.154.
210
[58]
valuable because they might help us to become more functional in the socalled ‘better’ Western way of life.
All these years later we are once again looking at the functionality of our
languages as a means to enable greater levels of acumen in Western ways of
knowing and doing. In particular the current House of Representative’s
Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, under
the chair of the Honourable Mr Shayne Neumann, will be looking into a
range of issues related to the teaching and learning of our languages
including the relationship between Indigenous students undertaking
language learning and their learning competencies, especially in terms of
English literacy proficiencies, and the benefits or otherwise this has in terms
of closing the gap in Indigenous disadvantage.215 The study that you are
currently reading is indeed premised on the same sphere of interest and
purposed towards similar goals.
I am very mindful, however, of the fact that we need to be very careful in this
second wave of thinking about the practical benefits of teaching and
learning Indigenous languages and cultures with the idea that it will procure
Indigenous English language proficiency and the like. Our intentions cannot
be in any way linked to the original idea of transitioning us out of mother
culture and assimilating us into dominator culture. Our languages and
cultures are not tools to be used in this way. I was resolute in Chapter 1
that our motivations must be underpinned by Indigenous human rights,
human rights that centre on access to language and culture regardless of
socio-economic advancement. For me, as an Indigenous person, I see that
dominator cultures have a clear cut moral and ethical obligation towards us
and our languages, which they have played a key role in destroying.
3.2 Protecting Indigenous Languages and Cultures
In surveying the vast body of literature on Indigenous languages and
cultures I have reached the conclusion that the obligation to protect our
Indigenous languages and cultures can be discussed in reference to four
distinct imperatives:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
a human rights imperative,
a reconciliation imperative,
a scientific imperative, and
an Indigenous cultural sovereignty imperative.
These imperatives are applicable internationally, nationally and here in New
South Wales. Further, these imperatives serve as tangible justification for all
levels of government in identifying and actioning social, cultural and
215Parliament
of Australia, House of Representatives, Inquiry into Language Learning in Indigenous
Communities, <http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/atsia/languages/index.htm>
[59]
political priorities for us commensurate with our right to maintain our
languages and cultures. The need to show quantifiable evidence of
advancement of Indigenous participation within Westcentric mainstream
society should never overshadow or otherwise usurp this, but it can have a
supportive role. Economic rationalism has its place, but I emphasise that it
should not be the only informing factor for securing language parity.
The obligations underpinning the responsibility of government to redress the
wrongs of the past have been articulated loudly and clearly in the ‘United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’. In Chapter 1 you
were introduced to several articles from this declaration, which actually
contains some 46 articles covering a wide range of cultural, educational,
land, language, social and political rights.216 This covenant of rights was
formally adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on the 13th of
September, 2007. In adopting this Bill of Rights the General Assembly
affirmed among other things that:
...Indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right
of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be
respected as such
...all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of
peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic
or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally
condemnable and socially unjust217
It may seem unnecessary to be again focusing on this covenant, but the
messages enshrined in the rights of this covenant are important to hear
because they spell out Indigenous standpoint on the imperative to protect
our Indigenous languages and cultures from further threat of decimation.
When the declaration was formally adopted by the General Assembly there
was an overwhelming 143 votes in favour of declaration, 11 abstentions, and
only 4 votes against the declaration.218 It should come as no surprise that
the 4 dissenting nations were the United States, Canada, New Zealand and
our own country Australia, the four most dominant Western nations with
Indigenous populations. This declaration at the time was seen as an abject
threat to the authority of these nations. Subsequent to this vote there has
been a turnaround in the sentiment of this opposition. Australia indicated
formal endorsement of the declaration on the 3rd of April, 2009, New Zealand
on the 19th of April, 2010, Canada the 12th of November, 2010 and finally
United Nations, loc.cit.
ibid.
218 United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues [UNPFII], ‘Adopted – Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ 13 September 2007, News,
<http://www.un.org.socdev/unpfii/en/news.html>
216
217
[60]
the United States on the 16th of December, 2010.219 Even so, each country
has stopped short of writing our declaration into law.
From our Indigenous perspective the reluctance to write our declaration into
law can be read as fear based because of the potentiality for reparation over
past injustices, including enforced Indigenous child removal – a practice
common in the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. The
formal endorsement of this document, however, can be read as moral and
ethical acceptance that we should not be required to relinquish our
languages and cultures in-order to participate in the dominant culture. My
hypothesis that our engagement and participation in the frameworks of
mainstream society is proportionate to our cultural health and wellbeing is
supported through our declaration because it articulates our desire to be
culturally sovereign peoples, and our right to have States facilitate this. This
human rights imperative annexes well with the discourse of reconciliation.
Here in Australia reconciliation is founded on principles related to righting
the historical wrongs of the past through acknowledgement of the reality of
the events of history, which includes public acceptance that policies aimed
at language and cultural destruction did exist and were implemented.
Reconciliation is also about achieving Indigenous social and economic
parity. Alongside this goal sits the key premise of reconciliation, our right to
have our languages and cultures valued as integral to the national
landscape.220 In terms of reconciliation representing an imperative for
protecting our Indigenous languages and cultures well known Indigenous
Bagaarrmugo/Guggu Yakanji spokesperson and Director of the Cape York
Institute Noel Pearson said it best when he expressed the view that:
We will have true reconciliation when millions of Australians speak our
Australian languages from coast to coast. It is then that we will have the keys to
our landscape, our history, our art, our stories. The Australian languages, and
the literatures and cultures that live or have lived through them, are the most
important things we have in Australia. Their revival, growth and use in all
social, political, educational, commercial and cultural domains are the most
important matter for Australia's future. 221
The meaning in Noel’s words is unmistakable. In the broader frame of this
newspaper piece he is clearly saying that as much as English may be the
UNPFII, ‘Australia’s Endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples’ 8 April, 2009; ‘UNPFII welcomes New Zealand’s Endorsement of the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ 19 Aril, 2010; ‘Canada Endorses the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ 12 November, 2009; ‘US Endorses Indigenous
Declaration’ 16 December 2010, ibid.
220 Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, Walking Together: The First Steps: Report of the Council for
Aboriginal Reconciliation to Federal Parliament 1991 – 94, Commonwealth of Australia, AGPS,
Canberra, ACT, 1994.
221 N Pearson, ‘Speaking one’s mother tongue is vital’, The Australian, 21 May 2011,
<http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/speaking-ones-mother-tongue-isvital/story-e6frgd0x-1226059932608>
219
[61]
dominant discourse in this country, and may well be the dominant
discourse behind Westcentric globalisation, there nonetheless is a moral and
ethical imperative to recognise and reconcile with the historical reality of
this country as one that belonged to and remains quintessentially
Indigenous in foundation. Noel does not step away from the reality that all
Indigenous peoples inevitably require the skill to communicate effectively in
English, but he also points to the fact that it is perfectly possible to be
functional both in Indigenous languages and cultures and also English. His
opinion brings into sharp focus, and I feel questions, the either or notion
that implies that us Indigenous peoples have to have one or the other, not
both.
Professor Michael Christie, a long time advocate of the teaching and learning
of Indigenous languages and cultures, and also recent recipient of the
Northern Territory’s Australian of the Year award has been very widely
reported echoing the outlook of Pearson by asserting that all Australians
should take the time to learn an Indigenous language.222 Christie has said to
non-Indigenous Australia that "learning the culture would help us reflect on
the narrowness of some of our own Western European culture".223 He also
made it clear that “Australian children should be given the opportunity to
learn an Aboriginal language at school, in addition to the foreign language
classes on offer”.224 In Christie’s opinion I read acknowledgement of our
historical dominion over this country, and our proprietary right to have our
languages and cultures take centre stage in the educational institutions of
our nation, underpinning the reconciliation imperative to protect and
advance our languages and cultures.
If, however, the moral and ethical imperatives set through the ideals of
reconciliation and the fundamentals of Indigenous human rights remain
either unpalatable or unconvincing then perhaps the imperative founded on
the interests of Western science will persuade. The imperative to ensure the
survival and revival of Indigenous languages and cultures can be argued
along Western oriented ‘scientific’ lines, and it is these arguments that
sound far more convincing to a Westcentric ear. Reflecting back upon
Harrison we know that language and knowledge are strongly entwined.225
We know too that language loss signals knowledge loss. Now it may be
thought that the loss of Indigenous knowledge is of little or no concern to
the health and wellbeing of the ‘modern’ globalising world, but that thought
would be entirely wrong.
222
‘Australians should learn an Aboriginal language’, Education Review, 27 January 2011,
<http://www.educationreview.com.au/pages/section/article.php?s=Breaking+News&idArticle=19717>
223
224
225
ibid.
ibid.
KD Harrison, op.cit.
[62]
Hale, before Harrison, poignantly stated that language is “...the intellectual
wealth of the people who use it”.226 Hale further stated that “loss of local
languages, and of the cultural systems that they express, has meant
irretrievable loss of diverse and interesting intellectual wealth, the priceless
products of human mental industry”.227 This loss is of immeasurable
importance to the holistic nature of the human bank of knowledge, which
extends well beyond the borders of Western science. Harrison’s outstanding
comparison of language loss to loss in biodiversity was more than likely
inspired by Krauss who some years earlier made the same comparison.228
Krauss lamented the lack of serious attention given to language loss and in
doing so challenged linguists’ to see the urgency of the matter; “surely we
linguists know, and the general public can sense, that any language is a
supreme achievement of a uniquely human collective genius, as divine and
endless a mystery as a living organism”.229
The comparisons of Krauss and Harrison together with the attestations of
linguists of the calibre of Hale stand as evidence that the crisis in language
loss is akin to a crisis in knowledge loss. Indigenous Ibaloi-Igorat rights
activist of the Philippines, Joji Carino, made plain the necessity behind the
continuance of Indigenous languages, which she confirmed are “...vital to
the conservation of biodiversity”.230 Carino has observed that our knowing of
country is “critical” to scientific research aimed at uncovering the
complexities of ecosystems because “many traditional practitioners are
experts at reading indicator species that provide very early warning signals
of impending environmental or food catastrophes and changes such as
global warming”.231 The Australian Human Rights Commission had also
made it known in their report released a year before Carino’s assessment
that “Indigenous cultural knowledge is increasingly playing a role in
preserving the biodiversity of Australia’s fragile eco-system”.232
The Commission cited Indigenous knowledge of fire abatement, climate
patterns and animal species as significant to the development of a global
knowledge bank that is needed in order to answer the potential disaster of
global warming.233 There are without doubt many other examples of this,
but one I found particularly interesting relates to the Boreal forest region of
the North American continent. The Indigenous peoples of this region were
K Hale, op.cit, p.36.
ibid.
228 M Krauss, op.cit, pp. 7-8.
229 ibid., p.8.
230 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, The State of the World’s Indigenous
Peoples, op.cit., p.43.
231 ibid.
232 Australian Human Rights Commission, op.cit., p.62.
233 ibid., pp.62-63.
226
227
[63]
acknowledged by the David Suzuki Foundation for their unique knowledge
of this region.234 The Indigenous knowledge contained within the Boreal
region “is unique to and intrinsically tied to this region and the rich variety
of plants from which this knowledge stems...” lending “...tremendous weight
to the significant conservation value of the Boreal region”.235 Metis
researcher Amanda Karst noted in her study that Indigenous storying of the
region had embedded within it vast amounts of ecological data; data about
plants species and historical events that are otherwise unknown to Western
science.236
Karst, like Carino, does not hesitate to point out that Indigenous loss of
language and cultural praxis embedded in the region would be a disastrous
loss for humankind. It is abundantly clear that if these vital Indigenous
knowledges, which are categorically embedded within languages, are further
eroded through the demise of knowledge Elders, without that knowledge
being handed on to the next generation, then the ecological integrity of world
knowledge itself could be said to be under threat. Carino argues that “the
future of indigenous peoples is closely linked with solutions to the crises in
biodiversity and climate change, which must incorporate respect, protection
and promotion of indigenous peoples’ rights as an essential component of a
global strategy”.237 The imperative to protect Indigenous languages and
cultures is directly implicated in this.
In the spirit of Ryan Wilson’s238 analogy with the ticking of a clock many
nations across the globe, certainly in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and in
the United States have reacted to the burden of obligation to respond
proactively to stemming the tide of perishing Indigenous languages and
cultures. In one sense, our language loss and cultural loss has become a
‘cottage’ industry for enthusiastic anthropologists, linguists, sociologists and
the like. Our loss does continue to create us as ‘subjects’ and ‘objects’ of
Western academia. It is a vexed situation for us. On the one hand we
recognise our need for ‘expert’ help; on the other hand we recognise our lack
of status as our own ‘experts’. We seem too readily to slip to the margins.
Certainly the vast majority of literature that I have thus far engaged with is
non-Indigenous in orientation, and more oriented toward Western scientific
ways of understanding rather than Indigenous ways of understanding.
A Karst, Conservation Value of the North American Boreal Forest from an Ethnobotanical Perspective,
David Suzuki Foundation and Boreal Songbird Initiative, Ottawa, Canada, 2010.
235 ibid., p.3.
236 ibid.
237 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples,
op.cit.,p.43.
238 D Frosch, op.cit.
234
[64]
This impasse between ways of knowing brings me to the fourth imperative
behind the need to protect our Indigenous languages and cultures and that
is Indigenous cultural sovereignty. Our right to speak mother tongue as a
basic human right is inexorably embedded in issues to do with cultural
sovereignty. Fishman confronted us with the question - ““What are you
going to do with the mother tongue before school, in school, out of school,
and after school?” Because that determines its fate, whether it is going to
become self-renewing”.239 This question doesn’t hold back, its gets straight
to the heart of intention in the protection, revitalisation and reclamation of
Indigenous languages and cultures because it asks us directly – do we want
a living museum relic of our culture?, or do we want a living, breathing,
spiritually alive materialization of culture that is ever-present in the day to
day being of our everyday life worlds?
If we truly want our languages back as organs of communication and
knowledge then we have to take the matter of cultural sovereignty seriously,
otherwise we risk relegation of our languages and cultural praxis to the
status of artefact; an article from a disenfranchised way of life. Viatori and
Usbigua focused on the status of language in the political context of
sovereignty demonstrating that language can be asserted as a
representation of sovereign being.240 In this regard sovereignty is a political
paradigm, but sovereignty can be far more than political. Indigenous
Comanche leader Wallace Coffey together with Indigenous Yaqui Professor
Rebecca Tsosie have examined the issue of sovereignty and determined that
whilst sovereignty is constrained within the politics of territorialism and
governance, cultural sovereignty is more expansive and anchors the sanctity
of our languages and cultures as autonomous ways of life.241
Cultural sovereignty according to Coffey and Tsosie “...seeks to revitalize and
affirm the values and norms embedded within Native belief systems”.242
They point to the role of language in cultural sovereignty noting that:
...the tangible repatriation of Native culture represented by the return of
ancestral remains and cultural objects is only one aspect of cultural restoration.
Restoration of language, spirituality, and Native educational systems are other
243
components of the repatriation of culture.
Coffey and Tsosie meaningfully discuss the intangible aspects of culture, our
values and philosophies, which go hand in hand with our languages. They
assert that:
JA Fishman, op.cit., p.13
M Viatori & G Usbigua, op.cit.
241 W Coffey & R Tsosie, ‘Rethinking the tribal sovereignty doctrine: Cultural sovereignty and the
collective future of Indian nations’, Stanford Law and Policy Review, vol.12, no.2, 2001, pp.191–221.
242 ibid., p.203.
243 ibid., p.207.
239
240
[65]
Native languages constitute an important repository of knowledge about tribal
concepts of spirituality, values, and philosophy. By acquiring this foundation,
Indian people are able to regain their identity, which helps overcome the
negative legacy of colonialism and promotes healing.244
If we are serious about the interplay between the teaching and learning of
Indigenous languages, Indigenous educational success and Indigenous
community health and wellbeing then we need to stop and take on board the
reality that the teaching and learning of language in an Indigenous context
is far more than merely the finding, transmitting and safekeeping of discrete
lexicons of words. It is about the repatriation of spiritual being,
philosophical praxis, values and knowledge. It is about the autonomy of our
ways of knowing, doing and being. Language can never sit outside of this. It
is far wider and infinitely more complex than just words. So for me the
teaching and learning of Indigenous languages and cultures is centred
within the repatriation of spirit being. It is our right to have this repatriation
and it defines the cultural sovereignty imperative to protect Indigenous
languages and cultures.
In synthesising all four imperatives [human rights, reconciliation, science
and cultural sovereignty] together there seems little moral or ethical room
for Nation States to not be actively engaged in partnering us in the
protection and repatriation of our languages and cultures. The question for
me is - what is actually being done at the practical level to protect
Indigenous languages and cultures? We know on the global stage that the
‘Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ sets an international
human rights standard for individual Nation States. In my consultation of
the literature I found that Norway is a nation that stands out over other
nations by setting a political benchmark for all other nations to follow. In
1992, in response to the 1990 International Labor Office’s (ILO) convention
on Indigenous peoples the ‘Sámi Language Act’ was enacted into Norwegian
law, thereby legally constituting “...Sámi and Norwegian as equal languages
with equal status”.245 This was some 15 years before the UN declaration.
According to Professor David Corson “the act's stated purposes are to enable
the Sámi to safeguard and develop their language, culture, and way of life,
and to give equal status to Sámi and Norwegian”.246 He also noted that
“Norwegian is becoming a second language. As the status of Sámi increases,
following the Sámi language laws, parents in Sámi areas now choose to have
their children educated in Sámi-medium rather than in Norwegian-medium
ibid.
D Corson, ‘Norway’s “Sámi Language Act”: Emancipatory Implications for the World’s Aboriginal
Peoples’, Language in Society, vol.24, no.4, 1995, p.500.
246 ibid.
244
245
[66]
classes”.247 The Norwegian Government has certainly made it clear that
“Norway was established on the territories of two peoples, Norwegians and
Sámi, and that both these peoples have the same rights to develop their
cultures and languages”.248 To that end the Norwegian Government has
declared that “the state shall take steps to ensure that the Sámi people can
further develop and strengthen their own culture, their own language and
their own business and industry and community life”.249
The example set by Norway is outstanding in assuring that the Sámi have
the political, social and cultural room to work towards achieving their
cultural sovereignty. The pathway towards this is no doubt long and there is
some evidence to suggest that whilst political change can be strong in terms
of protecting Indigenous languages and cultures, political protection is a
first yet very necessary step in a more complex process. In a more recent
reading on Sámi languages Corson’s observations were partially confirmed
in that with respect to “North Sámi” language within Norway it is reported
that “...language shift to Norwegian has been stopped and partly
reserved”.250 However, Professor Leena Huss makes it clear that this is not
the case across the board. There are still difficulties associated with “Sámimedium education” and there are issues with moving Sámi populations.251
Huss points to high numbers of Sámi moving to live in Oslo, Norway’s
capital city, and she advises that there are similar trends in population
movements in Finland and Sweden. This has impacted language
revitalisation, which Huss advises is far stronger in Sámi Administrative
regions.252 Huss also makes it clear that “minor Sámi languages” remain
highly endangered. “The five Sami languages are not all mutually
intelligible...”, so the idea of one unified language medium is problematic,
and the risk of the more popular North Sámi tongue dominating is real”. 253
Knowing that there are multiple rather than one Sámi language means that
realising political language and cultural protection at the level of praxis is
nowhere near as simple as it might seem. New Zealand is another case in
point, in that political change has occurred, yet problems still appear to
exist with Māori education and Māori wellbeing.
ibid., p.499.
Ministry of Government Administration, Reform and Church Affairs, Sámi Policy, Oslo,
Norway,n.d.,<http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fad/Selected-topics/Sami-policy.html?id=1403>
249 ibid.
250 L Huss, ‘Revitalisation through Indigenous Education: A Forlorn Hope?’ in NH Hornberger (ed),
Can Schools Save Indigenous Languages: Policy and Practice on Four Continents, Palgrave Macmillan,
Houndsmill, Basingstoke, UK, 2008, pp. 125–126.
251 ibid., pp.125-129.
252 ibid.
253 ibid., pp.130-131.
247
248
[67]
In New Zealand great political strides have been taken in protecting Māori
mother tongue. In 1987 the ‘Māori Languages Act’ was formally enacted into
New Zealand law thereby acknowledging Māori as an official language of the
nation. 254 As part of this legislation the New Zealand Government set up the
Māori Language Commission, Te Taurawhiri i te Reo Māori, whose purpose
is to promote Māori language to New Zealand’s entire population.255 This
sets a sound political example, but has it impacted? The latest statistical
evidence does show an increase of 1,128 Māori speakers between 2001 and
2006,256 which is certainly encouraging. The Māori Language Commission
also optimistically says that it expects the number of Māori speakers to
more than double in the coming years – a very impressive forecast.257 No
matter what the internal struggles may be for either the Sámi or Māori
peoples their languages at least are being politically embraced by their
Nation States.
In Australia, however, the political climate is different. A comprehensive
keyword search of the Parliament of Australia website reveals that there is
no standing parliamentary Bill dedicated to the recognition and protection of
our languages. 258 Whilst there are Bills about us and our variant socioeconomic conditions, which no doubt broach the subject of language,
language itself does not stand as the sole entity of an Act of Parliament. It
could of course be argued that it is difficult to enact a national language Bill
because it means working into law recognition of multiple distinct languages
and dialects, but I wonder whether or not a collective approach could be
taken. Certainly, in a study undertaken into Indigenous languages in South
Australia it was noted that “there is a strong feeling that rights in language
and rights to use language should be recognised in Australia...and that such
rights should be based on traditional Aboriginal understandings...”.259
The South Australian study was indeed very appealing in terms of how it
recommended i. the instigation of legislated Indigenous language policy at
the State level, ii. that language rights be considered in terms of ‘Treaty’ and
ii. that dual naming rights be similarly legislated.260 Although these
recommendations were made at a time when the former Aboriginal and
254
255
256
257
258
Maori Language Commission, <http://www.tetaurawhiri.govt.nz/english/>
ibid.
Statistics New Zealand, op.cit.
ibid.
Parliament of Australia, Parlinfo Search, <http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/search.w3p>
259 P McConvell, R Amery, MA Gale, C Nicholls, J Nicholls, LI Rigney & S Ulalka Tur, “Keep that
Language Going!”:A Needs-based Review of the Status of Indigenous Languages in South Australia, A
consultancy carried out by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies for
the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, South Australia, May 2002,
<http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/34168/1/hdl_34168.pdf>
260 ibid, p.22 & 25.
[68]
Torres Strait Islander Commission was still functional, the sentiment behind
them remains strong in Indigenous political assertion. One only need look at
recommendation no.40 (b) listed in the report of the ‘International Expert
Group Meeting on Indigenous Languages’ to appreciate this. This group
urges Nation States to “use the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples and other relevant human rights standards as the basis
to develop policies and laws related to the promotion and strengthening of
indigenous languages”.261
As for Australia, in 2008 a federal level study of Indigenous language
programming in Australian schools was published. This comprehensive
volume, authored by Dr Nola Purdie in collaboration with Tracey Frigo Clare
Ozolins, Geoff Noblett, Nick Thieberger and Janet Sharp was very revealing
in terms of Australia’s policy approach to our languages.262 One of Purdie et
al.’s key findings was that “there is considerable variation across the States
and Territories in current policy and practice related to Indigenous
languages programmes in schools. Some States have strong policy
documentation; several have none”.263 This finding, of course, pertains
specifically to education, but even so, it gives a reasonable indication of the
casual pace of protection and advancement of our languages generally.
Purdie et al. do draw attention to the ‘National Policy on Languages’ which
was published in 1987.264 This particular policy incorporated Indigenous
languages under a wider multicultural umbrella, nonetheless Purdie et al.
reported that it has been recognised as “...the first Australian public policy
recognition of Indigenous languages”.265
This policy recognition was extremely important for us because it began the
process of acknowledging at the national level the status of our languages as
significant within the national circumstance. More recently in 2009 the
Federal Minister for the Arts, the Honourable Mr Peter Garrett MP, together
with the Federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs, the Honourable Ms Jenny
Macklin MP, announced a National policy on Indigenous languages. In a
press release of the time it was noted that the policy would focus not only on
drawing “national attention” to our languages, it would encourage our
languages to be maintained through extension of our “everyday use” of
language. Further it was advertised that this policy was aimed at promoting
United Nations Economic and Social Council, Report of the International Expert Group Meeting on
Indigenous Languages, Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 7th session 2008,
E/c.19/2008/3,pp.8-9, <http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/EGM_IL.html>
262 N Purdie, T Frigo,C Ozolins, G Noblett, N Thieberger & J Sharp, Indigenous Language Programmes
in Australian Schools: A Way Forward, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace
Relations, Canberra, ACT, 2008.
263 ibid., p.x.
264 ibid, pp. 25-26.
265 N Purdie et al., op.cit., p.25.
261
[69]
recognition of our languages by Governments when interacting with our
communities who speak mother tongue “fully”, it was aimed at endorsing
and supporting the revival of our languages in situations where we no longer
have functional full mother tongue and very importantly it was said to back
“the teaching and learning of Indigenous languages in Australian
schools.”266
‘Indigenous Languages: A National Approach’, which appears as Appendix 3
in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioners
2009 Annual Report, stipulated that “the Australian Government is
committed to addressing the serious problem of language loss in Indigenous
communities” and recognised that this would call for “... coordinated action
among the bodies involved in support of Indigenous languages, including
government, language organisations and educational and research
institutions”. 267 Most importantly from the perspective of the context of this
research study this national policy noted that:
Given the centrality of language to strong Indigenous culture, and the broader
social benefits of functional and resilient families and communities, better
targeting support for Indigenous languages as part of a broader national focus
on Indigenous culture generally, will contribute to the overall well-being of
268
Indigenous communities.
The trouble with policy though is that whilst it can be strong on intent, it is
almost always far weaker when it comes to the power of enforcement, and it
is vulnerable to the tides of change in government. We are yet to see how
‘Indigenous languages: A National Approach’ pans out, but it must be said
that policy alone can never substitute for the legal authority instilled in an
Act of Parliament. The Australian Human Rights Commission was quite
critical of Indigenous language policy in Australia, asserting that:
The current situation regarding support and promotion of Indigenous languages
is fraught by differing and contradictory policies across the Commonwealth,
state and territory governments. On the one hand, the Commonwealth has a
National Approach which acknowledges the value of Indigenous languages and
supports their preservation and promotion. On the other hand, some state and
territory governments have policies which ignore Indigenous languages or limit
Indigenous language teaching in the interests of promoting English literacy.
Current Indigenous language policy in Australia is inconsistent and in some
cases contradictory. 269
J Macklin, ‘New national approach to preserve Indigenous languages’, Joint Media Release with P
Garrett, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT, 9 August 2009,
<http://www.jennymacklin.fahcsia.gov.au/mediareleases/2009/Pages/preserve_indigenous_language
s_10aug09.aspx>
267 Australian Human Rights Commission, op.cit, Appendix 3 ‘Indigenous Languages: A National
Approach’, pp.183–186.
268 ibid., p.184.
269 Australian Human Rights Commission. op.cit, p.59.
266
[70]
Interestingly, Adriano Truscott and Professor Ian Malcolm pay considerable
attention to policy and its effect in terms of our Indigenous languages.270 I
gained from their study a corroborating sense that policy is only ever as
good as the practical steps that are taken under a policy’s theoretical
direction. What happens on the ground demonstrates the value or otherwise
of a given policy. In our case Truscott and Malcolm suggest that policy
aimed at Indigenous language revitalisation, however well intentioned,
remains subordinated to the wider sweeping intent surrounding “Standard
Australian English (SAE)”.271 Truscott and Malcolm have pointed out that
“...the effect of the way in which the objective of SAE literacy is pursued can
be to deny the essential place of Indigenous languages in people’s lives and
in the continuance of their cultures”. 272 These authors show concern for the
struggle that inevitably takes place between the need for all Australians to
acquire Standard Australian English, and the language re-acquisition goals
of Indigenous language revitalisation. In this struggle revitalisation tends to
run secondary to the primacy of English first policy. 273
There is always going to be a tension within Australia between the need to
secure nationwide use of Standard Australian English and our demand that
our languages be sustained as first languages, particularly in the Northern
Territory where we have our greatest number of mother tongue speakers.
One would think that the Northern Territory would stand out within
Australia as the most likely place to have the most enlightened policy
approach towards our languages, yet according to Professor Jane Simpson,
Dr Jo Caffery and Dr Patrick McConvell the Northern Territory does not
appear to be working within the spirit of what is being espoused at the
Federal level, 274 nor indeed their own rhetoric which claims Indigenous
languages as the States ‘heart and soul’.275 They contend that “language
rights are only as strong as the implementation of relevant policies”.276 Like
me, they also identify that “...without explicit protection in law, Indigenous
communities have no control over government policies...” which means we
are left at the mercy of those chosen to implement policy, and their
interpretations.
A Truscott & I Malcolm, ‘Closing the policy-practice gap: Making Indigenous language policy more
than empty rhetoric’ in J Hobson, K Lowe, S Poetsch & M Walsh (eds), Re-Awakening Languages:
Theory and Practice in the Revitalisation of Australia’s Indigenous Languages, Sydney University Press,
Sydney, NSW, 2010, pp.6-21.
271 ibid., pp.7-8.
272 ibid.
273 ibid.
274 J Simpson, J Caffery & P McConvell, Gaps in Indigenous Language Policy: Dismantling Bilingual
Education in the Northern Territory, AIATSIS Discussion Paper no.24, AIATSIS, Canberra, 2009.
275 NT Government..., loc. cit.
276 ibid., p.7.
270
[71]
As it stands, Simpson et al., whose paper represents a hard hitting account
of the amazing debacle surrounding the dismantling of Indigenous bilingual
education programming through the Northern Territory Government’s
insistence that teaching be undertaken within the medium of Standard
Australian English in “the first four hours” of the teaching day, did not hold
back in concluding that:
Leaders today are willing to sacrifice Indigenous cultural heritage, identity and
rights in the name of ‘closing the gap’. In fact, gaps can be closed much more
effectively by working with Indigenous communities to harness their cultural
and linguistic background and heeding their wishes. Leaders may truly value
Indigenous languages and cultures but they can nevertheless become ensnared
in the current rhetoric and consequently succumb to pressures to hit out at
targets such as bilingual education, despite Two-Way learning being one of the
significant gains Indigenous people have made over the last few decades.277
What also came across in their study was the complete abrogation of
Indigenous parental and community right to have a say in the education of
our children, especially after the Federal Government’s Intervention. Our
Indigenous languages were left utterly unprotected. Simpson et al.
suggested that:
The introduction of bilingual education among Indigenous people in the
Northern Territory was possibly the most important step taken to maintain
Australia’s endangered languages. Its curtailment will surely have a severely
damaging effect on the state of health of Indigenous languages, as well as on
Indigenous people’s perception about how their enormous contribution to
Australia’s heritage is valued.278
The example of the Northern Territory shows just how easily the status of
our languages can change, yet our languages and cultures are embedded
within this nation’s very landscape; they certainly deserve to be legislated as
official national languages.
My central concern, however, is New South Wales, and it is pleasing to know
that we do have a formal policy that advances the status of our Aboriginal
languages. Our ‘Aboriginal Languages Policy’, is particularly strong in terms
of articulating Government commitment to supporting the revitalisation of
our languages.279 The policy for instance affirms that:
The NSW Government recognises the significance to Aboriginal people of
revitalising and maintaining their traditional languages, as an integral part of
Aboriginal culture. Language revitalisation and maintenance are fundamental
components in achieving social justice for Aboriginal peoples in NSW. 280
Revitalisation, as a practical strategy for stemming our language loss and
resurrecting our languages out of loss provides one means of ensuring
protection of Indigenous languages and by default cultures. John Hobson,
Kevin Lowe, Susan Poetsch and Michael Walsh suggested in their
277
278
279
280
ibid., p.6 & 37.
ibid., pp.36-37.
New South Wales Department of Aboriginal Affairs, op.cit.
ibid., p.5.
[72]
introduction to their volume ‘Re-awakening Australian Languages’ that
“language revitalisation is underpinned more fundamentally by notions of
cultural sovereignty”.281 From an Indigenous standpoint this statement
certainly rings true at the level of theory, but I wonder whether it is true also
at the level of praxis.
Before I move on to address the process of language revitalisation it is
important that you know that whether an Indigenous language initiative is
purposed towards maintenance, revitalisation, renewal or indeed
reclamation there is a socio-political setting, especially within the United
States, Canada, New Zealand and here in Australia, that situates the reality
of these initiatives. McCarty discussed this in reference to Indigenous
America explaining that:
Indigenous language revitalisation confronts not only a colonial legacy of
linguicide, genocide, and cultural displacement, but mounting pressures
for standardisation. Those pressures are manifest in externally imposed
'accountability' regimes- high-stakes testing, reductionist reading
programmes, and English-only policies...282
McCarty moved on to assert that “in the context of these demographic
transformations and the larger forces of globalisation, we are witnessing
increasing intolerance for linguistic and cultural diversity”.283 If we reflect
upon the interplay between language and knowledge this intolerance
jeopardises not only speech maintenance and revival, it jeopardises
knowledge maintenance and revival and therefore cultural praxis
maintenance and revival, and on this basis it can wound cultural identity.
Turning this around rests in no small measure on turning language
endangerment and loss around. Western academia certainly has an interest
in this. In Western academia there is a tendency to fixate on finding exact
terminology to name and classify any situation likely to become an area of
academic interest. The fields of linguistics are no exception to this. In
relation to the business of redressing our language loss the most frequently
mentioned linguistic terms within the literature are ‘revitalisation’ and
‘reclamation’, though ‘maintenance’, ‘revival’ and ‘renewal’ also appear quite
often. There are without doubt many definitions offered with regard to these
terminologies, however of all the interpretations I’ve read the
straightforwardness of the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority
[VCAA] was refreshing. They simply stated that:
Language revitalisation means that the language is still known and used
by the community, but only by a few people, usually the oldest members
J Hobson, K Lowe, S Poetsch & M Walsh (ed), Re-Awakening Languages: Theory and practice in the
revitalisation of Australia’s Indigenous languages, Sydney University Press, Sydney, 2010, p.xxvi.
282 TL McCarty, op.cit., p.159.
283 ibid.
281
[73]
of the community. Languages of this status can be learned in part by
listening to old people, and recording their speech.
Language reclamation usually means that relearning the language has to
rely primarily on old records such as tapes and historical documents.
People in the community may remember and use a few words, but to learn
the language beyond this level will require more than referring to Elders’
knowledge. Elders are still vital to this process due to their authority and
their cultural knowledge. 284
The VCAA break this down further on their language revival tab on their
website285 by noting that ‘language revival’ involves ‘language revitalisation’,
‘language renewal’, which applies “when there is still some language in the
community, but it is not used for everyday purposes”286 and ‘language
reclamation’. Purdie et al. have also looked at these terms too, and make an
important distinction between ‘language maintenance’ and ‘language
revival’.287 Language maintenance, as the name suggests, centres on
situations where our Indigenous languages remain as first mother tongue.288
The principal concern for language maintenance is to ensure the
continuance of mother tongue and therefore the avoidance of language
endangerment. Language revival on the other hand is an umbrella term
covering already transpired degrees of language endangerment and loss.
The concept of language maintenance sounds relatively uncomplicated
because it is centred on keeping healthy that which is already there. In the
case of our languages spoken across all generation’s maintenance tends to
centre on ensuring that each new generation is educated into thinking and
speaking within these languages, but because the risks of endangerment are
so high recording of language and cultural data has become paramount. In
her personal reflection on Indigenous languages Indigenous linguist Jeannie
Bell made it clear that “even in a community where the languages are
strong, language maintenance takes lots of work and resources”.289 A recent
example of this is the major Australian Research Council funded initiative
currently underway in the Northern Territory under the direction of
Professor Christie, which aims to create “...a living digital archive of
endangered literature in more than 16 Indigenous languages”.290
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority [VCAA], Aboriginal Languages, Culture and
Reclamation in Victorian schools: Standards P-10 and Protocols, VCAA, East Melbourne, Vic, 2009, p.9.
285 Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority website,
<http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/alcv/language_reconstruction.htm>
286 ibid.
287 N Purdie et.al., op.cit, p.xi.
288 ibid.
289 J Bell, ‘Australia’s Indigenous languages’ in M Grossman (coordinating ed), Blacklines:
Contemporary Critical Writing by Indigenous Australians, Melbourne University Press, Carlton, VIC,
2003, p.167.
290 ‘Research project to preserve Indigenous languages in NT’, Charles Darwin University, News Room
Archives 2010,
<http://ext.cdu.edu.au/newsroom/a/2010/Pages/ResearchprojecttopreserveIndigenouslanguagesin
NT.aspx>
284
[74]
One issue I would raise here is that digital and other forms of recording
language and cultural data are extraordinarily involved in relation to our
languages because there are many negotiations that must be undertaken
with regard to what is and what is not recorded and/or managed under
restricted access. The reason for this is as I’ve discussed earlier, many of our
language lexicons package highly restricted, sacred or gender specific
knowledges, and the laws/lores that govern these knowledges must always
be adhered to. That said, digitising language and cultural material is a key
strategy in language maintenance as is education, which you will find is
discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 4. In cases where fluent elderly
speakers are present, but where language is not spoken across the
generations, maintenance strategies such as digitisation and education
must dovetail with revival strategies.
Christie has made it clear that "it's a terrible tragedy that most of the
Australian languages are dead and will never be spoken again and yet we
don't seem to be terribly worried about how we ensure the vitality and the
ongoing viability of the languages we still do have."291 The challenge in these
words is utterly unmistakable in terms of maintenance, but what does this
mean for us Aboriginal peoples here in New South Wales. For one thing,
language revival for us is all about reversing the idea of ‘never to be spoken
again’. Even if we can’t achieve full fluency again, we cannot disregard the
concept of language maintenance on the basis that our mother tongues are
no longer our first languages because whatever we manage to revive we
must work to keep alive, so for us revival will always dovetail back in with
maintenance.
Bell commented that “it’s probably hard for non-Aboriginal people to
understand how much our own languages enrich our lives as Indigenous
peoples. To speak our language, even if we only know a few words, give us a
real connection with our land and our culture”.292 Bell also said, “The thing
that I would like to get over to people is you don’t have to be speaking a
language daily for it to be important to you”.293 This resonates with real
meaning for me because these words sound so similar to my own mothers.
Mum witnessed firsthand enforced language shift so she realised all too well
how important holding onto one single word could be, and she knew she
didn’t have to speak her language everyday for it to still be there inside her
spirit, keeping her strong within country. Words such as these underpin the
real emotional spirit behind language revival and language maintenance for
us.
291
292
293
‘Australians should learn an Aboriginal language...’, op.cit.
J Bell, op.cit., p.169.
ibid., p.165.
[75]
In the first instance, however, language revival is more pertinent to us here
in New South Wales because of the extent of our language loss, which is as
I’ve explained already considerable. Board of Studies New South Wales
Aboriginal Education Inspector Kevin Lowe of the Gubbi Gubbi peoples of
Queensland, together with linguist Anna Ash confirmed several years ago
that:
Though there are some languages within the state which are widely supported
and in a relatively healthy state, all NSW languages are acknowledged as needing
immediate and on-going support to sustain even small programs that aim to
improve access and use of language. In NSW, there are no communities where
an Aboriginal language is known by a critical mass of its adult population or
even where the language can be heard to be fluently spoken unrehearsed.294
This is a very telling statement, and although revival programmes have been
well underway since the time of this statement, it nonetheless appears that
this observation remains true for a great many of us. Nevertheless, we do
still have sufficient language knowledge holders in some of our cultural
nations to make language revival possible and practicable.
In terms of language revival Purdie et al. note that there are three categories
to be considered – ‘language revitalisation’, ‘language renewal’ and ‘language
reclamation’, though they also mention the additional category – ‘language
awareness’.295 Language revitalisation and renewal begin from the position
that there is enough existing knowledge of language, even when it is no
longer the mother tongue of everyday thought and communication, to revive
language, if not to a state of full fluency then at least to a reasonably
functional state of oral proficiency. Purdie et al. distinguish revitalisation
from renewal on the basis that revitalisation pertains more to those of our
cultural nationhood’s who have actual, though usually elderly, speakers
whereas renewal relates to when “language is no longer actively spoken
‘right through’ or in its full form, but there are Indigenous people who
actively identify with the language.296 In either case mother tongue is no
longer the everyday language of community, so to my mind revitalisation
stands as the most descriptively useful term.
In knowing that there are language knowledge holders within New South
Wales it is tempting to think that the process of revitalising our languages
would be less difficult. I’ve certainly heard idealistic phrases like ‘awakening
a sleeping language’ used in reference to this. Linguistics Professor
Emeritus, Leanne Hinton, certainly relied upon this form of phrase in one of
her chapters in the influential and widely referenced volume “The Green
K Lowe & A Ash, Talking Each Other’s Lingo: The Aboriginal K-10 Syllabus and its Role in Language
Revitalisation in New South Wales, 2006,
<http://ab-ed.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/files/talking_each_others_lingo.pdf>
295 N Purdie et al, op.cit., p.xi.
296 ibid.
294
[76]
Book of Language Revitalisation in Practice” which she co-edited.297 In this
volume Hinton indicates her preference for sleeping as analogous with
something that has gone ‘silent’. These terms ‘silent’ and ‘sleeping’ are to her
less final than ‘moribund’, ‘dead’ or ‘extinct’.298 What I found somewhat
disturbing though is Hinton’s claim that “communities in the grip of
language shift are often unaware that it is taking place, or are unconcerned
about it, or for various reasons are unable to do anything about it, until the
shift is complete”.299
In Australia, working off my own day to day contact with not only my
peoples and communities, but our academic literature, I can see that we are
all too aware of language shift, and we have always tried to arrest this, by
keeping words within families, speaking away from the ear of ‘protectors’,
missionaries and the like. So in one sense ‘sleeping’ sounds about right, but
my sense of ‘sleeping’ really is that it simply sounds nicer, and perhaps
more palatable, because it gives off a sense that language is just lying
dormant ready to be taken up again. This may well be the case where
enough knowledge still abounds that re-acquisition and re-uptake of
language is completely possible, but it is perhaps somewhat misleading in
cases where this is not possible. It seems to me that sometimes it is thought
that all you have to do is go to our knowledge holders, get the words from
them and begin teaching. No doubt getting words is a good place to start,
but as I’ve already emphasised Indigenous language revival and
maintenance is complex, culturally convoluted and painstaking work.
Purdie et al. actually listed an intriguing eight stage model for language
revitalisation that was proposed by Fishman, who suggested this model as a
way for moving revitalisation forward from re-acquisition to re-uptake of
language, in order to reverse language shift.300 The first stage in the process
is to educate adults into speaking language so that they can then educate
the young. The next step centres on creating an “integrated population of
speakers” with the idea of moving to the next step of establishing language
usage as part of everyday communication.301 Following on from this is
recognition of the need to have language use move beyond orality, and only
after this, at stage five, does Fishman think that education systems can
become involved. From there he suggests that language usage be spread to
L Hinton, ‘Sleeping languages: Can they be awakened?’ in L Hinton & K Hale (eds) Green Book of
Language Revitalisation in Practice, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 2001, pp.413 – 417.
298 ibid, p.413.
299 ibid., p.413.
300 JA Fishman as cited in Purdie et al. op.cit., p.21-22.
301 ibid.,p.22.
297
[77]
the workplace, local government and media, and then finally at stage eight
into higher education and wider levels of government.302
Whilst the Fishman model is holistic in terms of bringing speech and written
language back into being with the revitalisation of our Indigenous languages
we need to keep in mind that language is not merely speech communication
or written communication. My overriding impression from the literature,
however, is that there is a great deal of interest in revitalising speech and
written language from a linguistic perspective over and above a
cultural/spiritual perspective, yet as I’ve already highlighted in our
Indigenous context when we undertake business centred on language we
understand that we are working with a spiritual platform that is one with
country. The business of revitalisation for us is not merely linguistic in
nature; it is also spiritual in nature. So we need to consider what
revitalisation for us is really all about; is it merely bringing our speech
languages back, or is it far more?
Walsh helpfully recognised that revitalisation involves more than just speech
language alone, noting that “numerous language revitalisation programs
have stressed that language is just one part of the process and that other
cultural activities need to be integrated into that process”.303 Walsh is not
explicit about what ‘other cultural activities’ might be, but clearly we have to
face the reality that the degree to which a language is revived will have an
immediate informing influence on the degree to which cultural praxis is
capable of being revived and indeed the nature of that cultural praxis. If
language re-acquisition takes place on a more academic rather than cultural
footing I can see that sometimes the gap between loss of cultural praxis and
attempts to revive cultural praxis through language may be too great to
rekindle the deeper layers of spiritual routine.
In actuality because so much language and cultural decimation has taken
place here in New South Wales many of us are still fighting to improve
highly diminished word lexicons let alone anything beyond that, so the idea
of revitalisation for greater cultural fluency, or even moderate levels of oral
speech proficiency, sometimes feels more like a lofty ambition to us than a
tangible goal. On this basis the standard key motivational goal behind
Aboriginal language revitalisation appears, on the basis of academic
literature at least, to be general speech proficiency over and above all else.
This then brings me to the matter of what fluency actually signifies, and this
in turn stimulates consideration of whether or not there is a difference
302
303
ibid.
M Walsh, ‘Why language revitalisation sometimes works’ in J Hobson et al, op.cit, p.28.
[78]
between being fluent and being proficient in terms of language usage and
cultural praxis.
The matter of fluency was recently addressed by Hobson in ‘Re-Awakening
languages’.304 I found Hobson’s consideration quite informative because he
discussed the very significant distinction that exists between what can be
known as proficiency and what can be known as fluency. In terms of this
Hobson reported that when linguists look specifically to hone in on speech
they have a preference for using the term oral proficiency. Oral proficiency,
however, falls short of fluency because as Hobson pointed out “a person’s
language abilities consist of more than just oral proficiency”, in that they
also embody the “macro-skills of speaking, listening (understanding), writing
and reading”.305 Proficiency thus can be seen as one aspect of fluency,
whereas fluency itself can be seen as a more holistic entity, enveloping a far
wider range of communication and cognitive skills; though I would add to
this skill akin with spiritual perception.
Walsh in considering the dynamics of teaching Aboriginal languages here in
New South Wales similarly reflected upon fluency.306Walsh drew upon the
work of Daniel S. Rubin, a Canadian educator involved in the school
implementation of Sm’algyax language, a language of the Tsimshian Nation
of British Colombia, Canada. 307 Rubin recognised five levels of fluency,
ranging from “passive”, which centres on basic understanding of “common
words and phrases” through to “creative”, which equates with a high degree
of full fluency.308 In reading through these gradations of fluency, I can see
that whilst the ‘creative’ and ‘fluent’ categories stand as ultimate goals,
realistically for us here in New South Wales we may find ourselves not
moving far beyond “passive” fluency or what Rubin terms “symbolic”, which
refers to the ability to “...use common phrases and sentences in formal
settings, as symbols of language participation and cultural ownership” and
“functional”, which refers to the ability to “speak the language, with basic
understanding of its syntax, grammar, and rules of usage and a minimal
vocabulary”.309
J Hobson, ‘Questions of fluency in Australian languages revitalisation’ in J Hobson et al, op.cit.,
pp.267- 280.
305 ibid., p.270.
306 M Walsh, Teaching NSW’s Indigenous Languages Lessons from Elsewhere, project commissioned by
the Board of Studies New South Wales, 2002, p.17,
<http://ab-ed.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/go/resources/languages>
307 DS Rubin, ‘Sm’algyax language renewal: Prospects and options’ in J Reyhner, G Cantoni, RN St
Clair & E Parsons Yazzie (eds), Revitalising Indigenous Languages, Northern Arizona University,
Flagstaff, AZ, 1999, pp.17-32. < http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/RIL_3.html>
308 ibid,p.20.
309 ibid.
304
[79]
Walsh’s understanding of these categories of fluency reflects Rubin’s who
highlighted that degrees of fluency impact what goals can be set within
education programming and indeed what is achievable.310 In returning back
to Hobson’s consideration of fluency Hobson in drawing upon Fishman
argues that “if the ability to speak a language is irrelevant, we are not
discussing revitalisation so much as awareness”.311 In this regard Hobson is
pondering the goal of fluency in language revitalisation, claiming that
“...unless people are actually developing greater fluency, it seems to me that
revitalisation is not really happening”.312 Our Indigenous perspective is
somewhat different to this in that we consider fluency not so much in terms
of how many words we can use, or how many phrases we can string
together; it is how we spiritually engage with what is left.
I think though that sometimes we can come across as either overly
optimistic about regaining fluency, or apparently lacking in aspiration to
regain fluency. Either way, there are clearly degrees to which this is
achievable from high levels of speech proficiency through to limited levels of
word use. Can we conclude though that limited word use is merely
awareness at play? For me at a personal level I have to say that fluency is a
hard and emotional matter, especially when I reflect upon the importance of
Stephen Greymorning’s words:
...language instructors should be steadfast in their commitment toward the
language program and the all-important goal of producing genuinely fluent
speakers. In the case of language learning, this means to always move toward
increasing the language speaking ability of each group that follows until the goal
of language fluency has been achieved and maintained throughout successive
generations.313
I wonder about achieving fluency, not just in terms of what is obtainable in
the line of speech proficiency, but also in terms of what our languages
represent as banks of knowledge. As discussed in Chapter 2 it is clear that
our languages are heavily comprised of ecological data more relevant to our
foundational life ways of spiritual living on country. This complicates
revitalisation, particularly for those of us living in contexts where day-to-day
spiritual living on country is conditioned by the realities of dominator
society. In her study of Aboriginal language in respect to off reserve First
Nations peoples in Canada Dr Evelyne Bougie observed that “Aboriginal
languages are more likely to be used in the context of traditional Aboriginal
activities such as hunting, fishing, trapping or camping”.314 Bougie’s
M Walsh, Teaching NSW’s Indigenous languages..., op.cit. & DS Rubin, op.cit.
J Hobson, ‘Questions of fluency...’, op.cit.p.270.
312 ibid., p.270.
313 S Greymorning, op.cit., p.9.
314 E Bougie, Family, Community, and Aboriginal Language Among Young First Nations Children Living
Off Reserve in Canada, Canadian Social Trends no.90, Statistics Canada, Ontario, Canada, 2010,
<http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2010002/article/11336-eng.pdf>
310
311
[80]
observation is entirely relevant because the lexical context of a language
does impact how and where a language is best utilised.
What is also interesting in terms of this is that the close association between
our ecological knowledge and our language is such that it can impact the
methodological processes of revitalisation on the basis that it is often the
case that language memory and cultural cognition are only triggered, or
triggered more effectively, when ontologically situated. In reflecting upon my
own language knowledge I find that if I am asked outright what the
Dhungutti word or Dharawal word is for something I often have to think a
while, and sometimes don’t recall, or recall hours later. Yet when I’m on
country words come to me with ease. I reason that this happens because I
feel myself more at one with the spirit of country which is the life place of
language, so my cognitive processes become culturally contextualised.
Clearly when it comes to language revitalisation we are dealing with more
than word memory development, we are dealing with cognition.
A while ago I read a short local newspaper article about Stephen
Greymorning’s engagement with the Muurrbay Language and Culture Cooperative, which is located on the mid North Coast of New South Wales. In
this article Stephen’s language revitalisation methodology is referred to as
being “...based on engaging the brain, using problem solving, rather than
simply committing words to memory to learn a language”.315 This is very
interesting, especially for me and especially since it pertains to work being
undertaken by Muurrbay because one of the languages they focus on is my
own language ‘Dhungutti’ and another is ‘Gumbaynggirr’ which was the
language of one my closest cultural mentors Uncle Len Silva. That
Muurrbay are working beyond word memory is promising in terms of reacquisition and re-uptake of mother tongue.
Within New South Wales the example and successes of Muurrbay in terms
of language revitalisation and maintenance cannot be understated or
ignored, in fact I would go so far as to say that they have set a standard for
the rest of us to at least attempt to follow. A quick peruse of the Muurrbay
website will reveal that they have been operational since 1986, and that they
work in unison with the Many Rivers Aboriginal Language Co-operative.316
In terms of achievements to date they advertise some fourteen separate
language publications ranging from dictionaries through to teaching
resources. They are involved in the revitalisation of over six regional
‘Native American shows Indigenous Australians how to preserve language’ Guardian News, April
2007, <http://www.muurrbay.org.au/pdf_files/media_releases/2007/prof_greymorning_guardian_54-2007.pdf>
316 Muurrbay Aboriginal Language and Culture Cooperative
<http://www.muurrbay.org.au/index.html>
315
[81]
languages, and they have direct input into ten different schools within their
region.317 Further they now have forged links with the University of Sydney’s
Indigenous Languages Summer School programme.318
In thinking about the success of Muurrbay I was prompted to ponder
Walsh’s discussion centred on us under-reporting our knowledge of
language in that when we are asked about language we may well say that we
know very little or that our language knowledge holders are deceased.319
Walsh concluded that this is part of an entrenched pessimism that we hold
about the state of our languages; a pessimism that can be reversed through
the example of successful language revitalisation programmes such as
Muurrbay’s. This could be entirely true, but it may also be that we do not
always respond that well to ‘outsider’ inquiries that seek to find out what we
do and do not know in terms of our cultural knowledges. If you reflect back
on what I wrote about Indigenous perspective on knowledge and research in
Chapter 1 you will realise that we still have a certain reluctance to become
involved in research that takes us as ‘subject’ or ‘object’.
As I noted previously there is a socio-political context to all of this, just as
there is a cultural context. Walsh noted that he heard someone speak ‘lingo’
to someone else after reporting not being able to speak in language.320 In our
Aboriginal English ‘lingo’ refers to words of mother tongue, which are
blended in with English to form a distinct cultural dialect. Walsh’s
observation didn’t in the least surprise me because like being on country,
yarning in ‘lingo’ between ourselves means communicating within a cultural
context. It isn’t so much that we are being deliberate in not coming forth
with what we know, though indeed we might, it may also be that we are not
in the right context to cognise in ‘lingo’. These sorts of issues though are
embroiled in matters of Indigenous control. Often we feel that our languages
are being ‘taken over’ by linguists.
Matters to do with our control even scope matters of fluency, especially with
regard to the formal measurement and assessment of fluency. Hobson
concluded in his consideration of fluency that “Indigenous communities can
pursue their current activity in revitalisation without regard to fluency or
seek to exercise control. If they don’t it is probable that governments,
particularly through education and teacher training, will increasingly do
ibid.
ibid.
319 M Walsh, Raising Babel: Language Revitalisation in New South Wales, Australia, University of
Sydney, NSW, 2006, pp. 113 – 117.
<http://azoulay.arts.usyd.edu.au/mpsong/MichaelWalsh_files/WalshRaisingBabel.pfd>
320 ibid., p.114.
317
318
[82]
so”.321 Hobson’s statement flags significant tensions between how we
Aboriginal peoples conceptualise the growth, use and direction of our own
language and culture revitalisation projects and ambitions, and how
academic and government institutions may seek to define or otherwise
compartmentalise the teaching and learning of our Indigenous languages
and cultures for revitalisation.
Intentioned or otherwise statements such as these are provocative because
they reveal to us that we may find ourselves at various moments in the
revitalisation process at an impasse between our right to determine for
ourselves what we want to do in the name of language and culture
revitalisation and what Western academia and educational interests
prescribe for us, or condition for us. In respect to this the matter of
language engineering is particularly pertinent. In her consideration of
language revitalisation in context to Canada Professor Elizabeth Kay-Raining
Bird listed four major strategies in respect to Indigenous language
revitalisation: documentation, “language engineering” which she noted
“includes the development or expansion of written systems for existing
languages as well as the modernization of Indigenous languages”, education
and policy.322
I’ve already signalled the importance of documentation, addressed policy
and will scrutinise education in the next chapter, but the ideas associated
with ‘language engineering’ are quite specific and in my estimation hold
significant implications in terms of the difference between achieving
language revitalisation or language reclamation for awareness. Walsh looked
at this matter in terms of the grammatical ‘gaps’ that cannot be filled
through existing language knowledge or research, and “neologisms”; the
jargon of Western living which has no equivalency within our
languages.323Again how our languages are re-constructed is dependent upon
us and what we see as appropriate to our contemporary ways of thinking,
knowing, doing and being. One thing I would stress in reference to this is, as
I’ve highlighted in Chapter 2, and as Kay-Raining Bird pointed out “culture
is not a static phenomenon. Rather, it evolves over time as it is impacted by
external and internal beliefs, pressures, needs and goals”.324
In his personal reflection, based on years of personal knowledge and
experience with Pintupi peoples, Ralph Folds noted that the “...ability of,
J Hobson, ‘Questions of fluency...’ op. cit., p.278.
E Kay-Raining Bird, ‘Health, education, language, dialect, and culture in First Nations, Inuit, and
Métis communities in Canada: An overview’, Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and
Audiology, vol.35, no.2, 2011. p.121.
323 M Walsh, ‘Raising Babel...’ op, cit., p.115.
324 E Kay-Raining Bird, op.cit, p.115.
321
322
[83]
and need for, languages to evolve to remain viable, is often deplored as
undermining, or corrupting, living indigenous languages”.325 He further
noted that “young speakers of them are even sometimes described as having
a deficient language...merely because it is not the same as that of their
ancestors”.326 In thinking about this we need to be realistic about how
revitalisation will compliment our contemporary everyday context. Folds said
that:
Whilst there is a place for the preservation of old forms of languages and the
cultural knowledge they express, the expectation that they will then be
resurrected as the standard for contemporary speakers is unrealistic...Outsiders
are indeed implacably rigorous when applying their ideals of cultural
authenticity to indigenous people, whom they vigorously attempt to educate
away from innovation.327
Maybe we Aboriginal peoples in New South Wales should be thinking about
how we can fuse language revitalisation, reclamation and even awareness as
a more holistic cultural endeavour that can feed into our already strong use
of our cultural dialect ‘Aboriginal English’.
Thinking about the utility of ‘Aboriginal English’ brings me to the matter of
language reclamation and language awareness. The reclamation of
Indigenous languages is in many ways altogether different from the
revitalisation and renewal of Indigenous languages. This is because
reclamation is predicated entirely on research, which is necessary because
existing language situations are so critical that there are no fluent or even
partially fluent speakers remaining, and existent levels of knowledge about
language are so negligible that individual words and phrases have to be
retrieved from historical resources. As with revitalisation and renewal there
are degrees of achievability with language reclamation. The most dire degree
is awareness, where only a very limited number words can be found and
subsequently taught.
In the case of language reclamation the possibility for regaining speech
proficiency exists though more often than not it is not expansive. With
language awareness there is no prospect of achieving any degree of
foundational speech proficiency. This can be a very daunting prospect
indeed. As a community Indigenous person, who has over the years seen
firsthand language revitalisation and reclamation effort, I must say that I
tend to read sentiment in existing non-Indigenous literature, and Indigenous
demand, when it comes to reclamation which appears hopeful, yet
somewhat overly optimistic. This is where the ‘sleeping’ concept is perhaps
at it most misleading, because we can be easily misguided into thinking that
R Folds, Crossed Purposes: The Pintupi and Australia’s Indigenous Policy, University of New South
Wales Press, Sydney, 2001, p.118.
326ibid.
327 ibid.
325
[84]
there are vast tracks of language data just sitting on library shelves waiting
to be returned to us, and once again revived into everyday speech use.
Like any other Aboriginal person I find myself having to be pragmatic about
the distance between what we should have in terms of our languages and
cultures and what we perhaps we will have. Walsh indicated some hope for
us in saying that “a number of NSW languages have a sufficiently rich
descriptive base to make language reclamation a viable option”.328 To tap
into this ‘rich descriptive base’ Hinton affirmed that:
To begin the process of reclaiming an unspoken language, the first step is to
find and acquire copies of whatever documentation of the language exists.
Besides publications, there may be a rich store of unpublished documentation,
such as linguistic field notes, field recordings, old manuscripts. 329
Added to this are sources such as personal diaries, correspondence and the
like, often found in archives. At a personal level I can certainly attest to the
fact that there is a surprising range in data available upon our languages.
One initiative that will surely reveal this is currently underway in New South
Wales. This initiative, which is centred within the business of reclamation, is
the State Library of New South Wales sponsored language “rescue” venture:
“Rediscovering Indigenous Languages”.330 The objective behind the project is
to “identify as many word lists as possible in the State Library’s collections,
and make them available to their relevant Indigenous communities in
culturally appropriate ways”.331 It has been noted that “fragments of these
[our] languages can be found among the letters, diaries and journals of
British naval officers, surveyors and missionaries held, in the State Library's
unrivalled collections.”332 This is without doubt an extremely worthwhile
project, but it does demonstrate in a very practical way the lengths to which
we must go in order to reclaim our languages.
Sometimes the question isn’t so much how much data is available; it is more
how much is culturally intelligible and accurate? There are hard cold
realities with reclamation, the most difficult of which is dispute centred on
the cultural origins of words, the pronunciation of words, and who has
ownership and authority over these words once reclaimed from Western
historical records. Whilst there is little public discussion of this within
academic and general literature, as an Indigenous community person with
considerable knowledge of cultural dispute I can certainly confirm that these
M Walsh, Raising Babel...,op.cit, p.115.
L Hinton, op.cit., p.413.
330 State Library NSW, ‘NSW State Library launches landmark project to rescue Indigenous
languages’, Media Release, 12 August 2011,
<http://blog.sl.nsw.gov.au/media/enclosures/Indigenous%20language%20lists_MR_120811.pdf>
331 ibid.
332 ibid.
328
329
[85]
forms of dispute are ongoing and intense. Stephen Greymorning gave some
indication of this when he was reported saying “in most indigenous language
centres, arguing over correct pronunciation or word usage was the greatest
factor slowing down the preservation process”.333 He certainly observed that
we “spend more time arguing about the right and wrong way to speak the
language, instead of getting out to newer speakers”.334
Added to this, McConvell et al. found in their study of the Indigenous South
Australian experience that:
Indigenous groups sometimes argue about the identity of languages, whether
one type of speech is a dialect of another language, and whether one type of
speech has one particular name or another. These arguments can become
particularly severe when they are mixed up with Native Title and other disputes
between groups.335
They also lamented in reference to dispute over three specific and severely
endangered Indigenous languages that “one of the sad consequences of such
arguments is that they obstruct work on language and language
maintenance”.336 Whilst these disputes clearly revolve around languages not
yet at a reclamation stage, they are indicative of the types of dispute that
arise in the reclamation situation. In the case of reclamation these sorts of
disputes are similarly centred on language/tribal boundaries, and as is the
case with the South Australian experience the passing of words across
boundaries over time.
There are no ‘easy fix’ solutions for managing Indigenous cultural dispute.
The Native Title Tribunal certainly handles dispute regularly through its
process of mediation. These forms of processes bring parties together with
an impartial mediator with the idea of being able to find common ground so
that agreement can be reached.337 In terms of language reclamation, and
indeed revitalisation, being able to defer to a neutral culturally expert body
for advice and direction on language matters, from origin and ownership of
words through to pronunciation, is something not to currently available,
and I suspect will remain so as long as no formal legal status is afforded our
languages and cultures. I can of course here the question – but what would
such a mechanism look like? My immediate reply to this is that it would be
something that needs to be debated within Indigenous circles first, but I do
offer some advise in Chapter 5 related to the working parameters of localised
language/culture centres.
S Greymorning cited in ‘Native American shows...”, op.cit.
ibid.
335 P McConvell et al., op.cit, p.47.
336 ibid, p.48.
337National Native Title Tribunal, Native Title Mediation, 2009, <http://www.nntt.gov.au/PublicationsAnd-Research/Publications/Documents/Brochures/Native%20title%20mediation.pdf>
333
334
[86]
Whatever the outcome of such debate the cultural sovereignty imperative to
protect our Indigenous languages and cultures suggests that we need to be
self-determining about the future of our languages and cultures. As it
stands what we tend to do is defer to the authority of Western linguistic and
educational experts, but as Walsh points out that too presents difficulty,
especially in terms of the transmission of languages and cultural
knowledges, linguistic interpretation of languages and so on.338 The fact that
reclamation is particularly convoluted by a lack of existing cultural speaker
authority can only add to the drama over words and place. Making it all the
more so is the worry that many Western linguists subscribe to the structural
principles of language universality, which means that their influence may
well ‘de-culture’ and ‘de-spiritualise’ the essence of country within word.
In knowing that dispute of this nature takes place it would be easy to say
that reclamation is probably in the ‘too hard basket’, but the example of the
Kaurna language proves otherwise. The reclamation of Kaurna has been
widely discussed within the literature on Indigenous language reclamation,
and is regularly heralded as a success story. Indigenous Narungga Professor
Lester-Irabinna Rigney, whose Grandmother’s language was Kaurna, wrote
about how the study of linguist Dr Rob Emery led to the reclamation of
Kaurna “...from the pages of history books...” into “...the vocal chords of my
people”.339 Rigney noted that “Kaurna still has a long way to go to recovering
fully our language. However, as a result of hard work from several
committed people, Kaurna language is now taught at an institution at every
level of education from primary school to university”.340
Another rather similar success story likewise comes from South Australia in
respect to the Ngarrindjeri language. According to a report provided on the
Federal Government’s Indigenous website this language was reported to
have lost its last fluent speaker in the 1960’s. Some 20 years later, in the
1980’s, work began on reclaiming the language back. The original efforts
that were made yielded a collection of some 250 words. Since then this
collection has expanded significantly into a dictionary listing almost 4,000
words. Through this effort Ngarrindjeri has become “...the second most
widely taught Aboriginal language in South Australian schools”.341 An Elder
Eileen McHughes involved in reclaiming her Ngarrindjeri language expressed
M Walsh, Raising Babel ..., op.cit., p.116.
LI Rigney, ‘Indigenous Education, Languages and Treaty: The Redefinition of a New Relationship
with Australia’, Treaty: Let’s Get it Right!: A Collection of Essays from ATSIC’s Think Tank and Authors
Commissioned by AIATSIS on Treaty Issues, ATSIC/AIATSIS, Woden, ACT, 2003, p.81
340 ibid.
341 ‘Ngarrindjeri Yanun: Speaking Ngarrindjeri’ 7 April 2010,
<http://www.indigenous.gov.au/stories/speakingngarrindjeri/>
338
339
[87]
how knowing her language “…lets me know who I am, who I’m related to
and it makes me proud to be an Aboriginal”.342
It is generally thought though, that if reclamation is to be successful in
moving a language through to a state of maintenance then some form of
language engineering is almost always inevitable. Hinton noted that
“sometimes documentation itself is inadequate, and “reconstitution” is
necessary if a community wishes for language revitalization”,343 meaning
moving forward from reclaiming a language out of the pages of history and
revitalising it back into actual use. Language reconstitution can be thought
of as a variation on the theme of language engineering, but as Hinton
defines it, it centres more on extrapolating into research “...whatever
information exists to guess what the language might have been like”, and
also the use of related languages.344 Hinton says that language change is
inevitable and “...holds true for the awakening of sleeping languages as
much as for the languages that are recovering from a less severe state of
decline”.345
In the literature there is much to be found in the way of instruction when it
comes to ‘discovering lost languages’, ‘awakening sleeping languages’ and
‘bringing dead languages back to life’. But what happens when language
engineering and language reconstitution, or whatever other terminology you
prefer to apply, cannot move a language any further than a few
miscellaneous words. This happens when the most arduous research can
only produce speech lexicons of 10, 20 or 50 odd words. These highly
diminished lexicons fall into the category of language awareness because
they cannot be added to sufficiently in order to create anything like a
language as we know language, so we come up against a linguistic inertness
wherein all we can hope to do is memorise and repeat these last few words.
What happens then, do we just keep these words as an artefact of what once
was, or do we do something more productive?
There is a fairly good chance that words in a language awareness scenario
are going to be place names, names of flora and fauna species or
geographical descriptors. One way of moving forward in a practical sense
with limited language data is to invest in dual naming, a process that is
already underway in many parts of Australia, and here in New South Wales.
Dual naming gets our words out into the broader community so that they
become part of our national cultural landscape. Notwithstanding the
342
343
344
345
ibid.
L Hinton, op.cit., p.414.
ibid.
ibid.
[88]
benefits of this, in terms of the health of our cultural identity we need to
think about how these diminished word lexicons can be constructively
managed in a way that brings them into some form of conversational or
environmental science usage. As Bell said, and as my mother said, even
getting one word back, if not into our conversation, then at least into our
knowledge ways can make a difference in reinforcing who we are as First
Peoples.
Professor Ghil’ad Zuckermann together with Walsh looked into Hebrew
language reclamation as an example relative to our Indigenous language
experience.346 In their article there is one brief line - “we predict that any
attempt to revive an Aboriginal language will result in a hybrid, combining
components from Australian English, Aboriginal English, Kriol, other
Aboriginal languages and the target Aboriginal tongue” that hints at
language engineering/language reconstitution without being more
detailed.347 If this sentence were to be read as a suggestion for a hybrid
national Indigenous language which would sweep all these elements
together, then I would say that it is largely unrealistic because of the
complexities surrounding the cultural politics of language, country and
identity. If, however, this sentence is read as a suggestion for regional
ontologically affiliated cultures, which I read it to be, then potential does
exist.
Where smaller diminished lexicons are reclaimed and where Indigenous
persons are found to have cultural relationship with the reclaimed words,
our peoples would have to look themselves at what they may wish to do, and
whether or not they wish to negotiate language with neighbouring
ontologically affiliated cultures so that what they have left of foundational
language can be culturally supported and possibly moved beyond
awareness. It may be helpful in this regard to draw upon Uncle Stan Grant
and Dr John Rudder who in reference to the Wiradjuri language of New
South Wales emphasised that Wiradjuri can take “...words from other
languages and turn those words into its own way of thinking and its own
sound patterns. Like all other languages it can also build new words for new
things using Wiradjuri ways of thinking and Wiradjuri sounds”.348
In thinking about the matter of a language having its own sound ways, and
in thinking about my own Dhungutti mother tongue I find that what Uncle
Stan says is correct. For instance we say in Dhungutti ‘goff-ee’ for coffee,
G Zuckermann & M Walsh, ‘Stop, Revive, Survive: Lessons from the Hebrew revival applicable to
the reclamation, maintenance and empowerment of Aboriginal languages and cultures’, Australian
Journal of Linguistics, vol.31, no.1, 2011, pp.111-127.
347 ibid., p.121.
348 S Grant & J Rudder, loc.cit.
346
[89]
‘djook-ar’ for sugar, ‘gow-an’ for dress, ‘bumma-kin’ for pumpkin and ‘bullung’ for cow. These are just examples of how our language has absorbed
and created new words, more like a Creole in many ways. If the spelling is
not uniform with other representations of Dhungutti I’d ask you to
remember two things – i. our language was always oral in nature and ii. the
way I have represented these words is to illustrate my own pronunciation
based on what my family Elders taught me. Knowing that we have actively
done this, and knowing too that we have also woven much of this in with
Aboriginal English is of practical importance especially with regard to
language reclamation and awareness.
I understand though that when language awareness is centred on such little
language knowledge and data that this form of language change and
expansion may not be as possible. Grant and Rudder interestingly also put
forward the idea that “a good speaker of Wiradjuri can actually use English
words and still speak Wiradjuri. This is because what makes a language
different from another is not so much the words, but the way of thinking
that is used”.349 Perhaps this more philosophical approach may have some
relevance here, certainly it is reminiscent of Williams’ observations regarding
Welsh mother tongue, which I discussed earlier on. If we look at the case of
Aboriginal English, of which I am a very strong speaker, our ‘lingo’ works
English in together with our own cultural words, and our own cultural
interpretations of English words, which has in effect created the type of
hybrid language Zuckermann and Walsh are signalling.
One of the greatest advantages of hybrid language is its ability to move
across borders; Aboriginal English is no exception to this. Regionally we
each have our own specific forms of Aboriginal English lingo, but we
understand one another just the same. That is because we use the power of
our ‘lingo’ as the linguistic face of our collective cultural identity as
Aboriginal peoples, beyond the borders of our own language boundaries.
Individual words from our unique speech lexicons can move more fluidly
across country in this way. Creoles, such as the Kriol lingo’s of the Northern
Territory are similar in that they bring multiple languages together,
sometimes two or more specific languages with English. These forms of
language are brilliant for facilitating and affirming wider collective cultural
identity, though in the case of Kriol in particular they are not without
criticism.
I think though that the value of Aboriginal English to language reclamation
and awareness bears closer scrutiny. What I have found is that Aboriginal
349
ibid.
[90]
English tends to be understood more readily from a speech perspective and
whilst our different words and phrases are recognised, I am yet to come
across much in the way of discussion about the non-audible aspects of our
lingo, signing being a prime example. Nor do I find that much centred on
‘gapping’, the longer silent pauses we fuse into our lingo. These rather
subtle aspects of our communication are very strongly centred within the
ways of our foundational languages and it is these very subtle differences
that often don’t gain anywhere near the attention they require when
language reclamation is being considered. Yet these significantly cultural
features of Aboriginal English afford reclamation and awareness a viable
avenue for cultural contextualisation otherwise not available.
Language engineering and reconstitution, in terms of foundational
languages being fused into creoles or ‘dialects’, does raise some concern.
Bell for instance pointed out that “Creoles and Aboriginal dialects of English
are an issue in areas where you have strong Indigenous languages and you
want to maintain them. As with English, pidgins and Creoles can have an
overwhelming effect on Indigenous languages”.350 This would indicate that
there is a difference in how the role of Kriol for instance is seen where
language maintenance and revitalisation is possible and Aboriginal English
where language maintenance and awareness are more probable. Fold’s
arguments are somewhat oppositional to Bell’s because he sees languages
like Kriol more as part of the natural movements of language by speakers
themselves. I see it all as incredibly complex because of the spirit of country,
but where foundational language is all but gone Aboriginal English lingo’s
are perhaps not a bad compromise.
There are no doubt endless debates to be had here about language
engineering, language reconstitution, hybrid language, Aboriginal English
and indeed the Kriol tongues that bring languages together, often with only
very minimal influence from English. These debates will always be had in
relation to language revitalisation, particularly with Kriol as arguments wage
back and forth over the natural movements of language and authenticity of
language, but also in relation to reclamation, especially because of the
nature of what reclamation is, having no existing speakers to guide
pronunciation and the like. What I find personally remarkable about our
Indigenous language revitalisation and reclamation alike is the apparent
endlessness of the literature about us, and the amount of linguistic and
anthropological interest in us, yet there remains a stark imbalance between
this and the sound of our own voice, and the stamp of our own direction.
350
J Bell, op.cit., p.166.
[91]
What I have written thus far imparts to you what I feel is an indispensable
introduction into the realities of Indigenous language revival, especially in
respect to language revitalisation and reclamation. In almost all of the
literature behind revitalisation and reclamation education comes to the fore
over and over again as the most recognisable avenue for facilitating the
reversal of the damage wrought through coloniser hegemony, and for
rekindling our active interrelationship between ourselves, our languages and
our cultural praxis commensurate with our knowledge ways. Education
stands out in this regard as the way forward. There is continual strong
commentary within national and international literature that flags education
systems as a primary avenue for us to nurture the cultural education of our
upcoming generations, and thereby protect, revitalise and reclaim our
cultural continuance.
[92]
The decision to make English the only important language in our schools will only make the
situation for our young people worse as they struggle to be proud Yolŋu in a world that is making
them feel that their culture is bad, unimportant and irrelevant in the contemporary world
Yalmay Yunupingu
Chapter 4 - Educational Engagement
4.1 Positioning Indigenous Languages and Cultures within Education
The Hon. Shayne Neumann, MP, in speaking publicly about the current
House of Representatives Standing Committee inquiry into Indigenous
languages said, “We are walking the path to reconciliation by giving
attention and proper recognition to Indigenous languages and cultures”.351
He also said, “There seems to be a belief in Australia that we are a
monolingual nation and that only Standard Australian English can benefit a
person, both educationally and vocationally”.352 These two statements align
with the imperative to protect our Indigenous languages and cultures, and
fundamentally set a strong socio-political tone for understanding Indigenous
educational engagement. Firstly, because without the benefit of the core
principles of reconciliation there would be no prospect of equal linguistic
and cultural representation within State mainstream education systems for
us Indigenous peoples, and secondly because the idea that the continent of
Australia has or has ever had one single language is so utterly erroneous as
to be absurd.
Indigenous educational engagement is theorised by many to be
proportionate to the degree of cultural representation found within
educational services and programmes, thus bespeaking the importance of
teaching and learning Indigenous languages and cultures. As an Indigenous
academic I have often added my own voice to this school of thought.
Notwithstanding the veracity or otherwise of this line of reasoning, how you
come to perceive the importance of bringing our Indigenous languages and
cultures into State mainstream education programmes very much hinges
upon how you engage with the spirit of reconciliation. It hinges too upon
whether or not you value the probity of our Indigenous cultural rights and
educational rights as fundamental human rights and how sincerely you
accept the imperative to protect our languages and cultures from further
decimation. It may be though that you feel that the importance of having our
languages and cultures within mainstream education should be contingent
upon the beneficial role it may have in promoting our scholastic endeavour.
351
352
‘Inquiry to focus on language’, Koori Mail, no.506, 27 July 2011, p.14.
ibid.
[93]
Whatever the case may be, if we reflect back upon the content and context
of Chapters 2 and 3 it will become apparent that the measure of the
importance of teaching and learning Indigenous languages and cultures
within State mainstream education systems rests on how the following
fundamental yet challenging questions might be answered:
1. Should Indigenous languages and cultures be taught within State mainstream
education systems as a matter of reconciliation?
2. Should Indigenous languages and cultures be taught within State mainstream
education systems in response to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples?
3. Should State mainstream education systems undertake a key role in partnering us
to protect and maintain our mother tongues and mother cultures?
4. Should State mainstream education systems undertake a key role in partnering us
to revive our languages and cultures through revitalisation and reclamation
programmes?
5. Should State mainstream education systems look to support Indigenous language
and culture learning only if it proves to be a useful conduit for our learning success
within the Western domain?
What needs to be said at the outset is that there is no getting around the
inherently political nature of education for us Indigenous peoples. That is
because our stance on education as the process of cultural production and
reproduction is directly proportionate to our stance on the survival and
revival of our languages and cultures. It is safe to say that it is now
universally acknowledged that we do not surrender our right to maintain
and sustain our languages and cultures through the processes of education,
though it is also equally safe to say that in many instances Nation States
still do not accept this. Here in Australia, with the repeal of assimilation
policy in 1960’s, the emergence of Indigenous education policy and the rise
of the reconciliation movement our right to maintain and sustain our
languages and cultures through education now has weight.
There is, however a division to be seen between cultural education, which I
have long termed Indigenous education, and education typically offered
through the States mainstream education system, which I have also long
referred to as being related to the provision of education for Indigenous
peoples. This split may well seem pedantic, but it actually highlights quite
well current discourse centred on the interplay between us, our languages
and cultures and the processes of education. In an interesting article
analysing Indigenous language education policy Haley De Korne made a very
brief, but nonetheless poignant, reference to the issue of whether a language
is to be the “medium” of education or an “object” of education.353 Whilst De
Korne unfortunately doesn’t go on to discuss what each of these terms mean
in detail, it is clear that this division harks at the difference between a
H De Korne, ‘Indigenous language education policy: supporting community-controlled immersion
in Canada and the US’, Language Policy, vol. 9, 2010, p.118.
353
[94]
culturally embedded mode of education, and an anthropologically toned
mode of education.
You may well wonder what I mean by this. Basically the term ‘medium’
refers to the language and culture in which the teaching and learning
interchange takes place. In New Zealand this form of terminology has had
currency for a while now. Indigenous Māori academic Dr Colleen McMurchyPilkington explained the concept of medium in relation to “Kura Kaupapa
Māori” which is an educational stage principled on “...teaching and learning
occurring within a Māori framework, [wherein] spiritual dimensions of the
learners are given important consideration, and Māori is the medium of
instruction”.354 Along a similar vein Indigenous Diné/Lakota academic Dr
Tiffany S Lee wrote that “Navajo people and educators of Navajo children
concerned with maintaining Navajo language have created schools that use
Navajo as the medium of instruction in an effort to help Navajo children
become literate in Navajo language”.355 The same terminology is used here in
Australia, for instance Simpson, Caffery and McConvell tell us:
In the Northern Territory, the terms ‘bilingual education’ or ‘Two-Way’ learning
are used for ‘mother tongue medium’ programs, that is, programs where
children are taught for the first few years of school by teachers, or teams of
teachers, who use the children’s home language to teach them, along with
explicit teaching of oral SAE.356
The converse of ‘medium’ is ‘object’ wherein our languages and cultures
become subsumed into Western curriculum frameworks as units of study.
Under this concept our languages and cultures become disembodied from
the spirit realm of their epistemology and become ‘anthropologically’
endowed as subjects. Lee illustrates this point well in her observation that
“Navajo language is compartmentalized as a separate topic of study,
removed from other academic content areas. Compartmentalizing Navajo
language is the most common approach for teaching Navajo language in
schools today”.357 This observation speaks directly to the significant
difference between how we conceptualise education and how Western
frameworks of education are composed. Lee summed this up rather
succinctly in referring to the words of a Navajo educator:
Fred E. Jones, a Navajo educator, explained the contradiction between Western
schools and the purpose of Navajo education. He stated that, in traditional
Navajo beliefs, education is the means to mastering life, not bodies or subjects
of knowledge as in Western educational methods.358
C McMurchy-Pilkington, ‘Indigenous people: Emancipatory possibilities in curriculum
development’, Canadian Journal of Education, vol.31, no.3, 2008, p.619.
355 TS Lee, ‘“If they want Navajo to be learned, then they should require it in all schools”: Navajo
teenagers experiences, choices and demands regarding Navajo language’, Wicazo SA Review, vol.22,
no.1, 2007, p.8.
356 J Simpson, J Caffery & P McConvell, op.cit., p.9.
357 TS Lee, op.cit., p.13.
358 ibid., p.12.
354
[95]
The immediate conclusion that may be drawn here is that State mainstream
education systems may be no place for Indigenous languages and cultures,
but this would perhaps be a premature conclusion. Under the principles of
reconciliation there should be no reason why Indigenous-medium education
cannot find time and space within a Nation States system of education
instead of having our languages and cultures compartmentalised into
subjects. There is in actuality quite a division of thought regarding this
within Indigenous academic and community discourse. This division is
important because it reveals the undertone behind why dialogue on the
importance of teaching Indigenous languages and cultures splits as soon as
State mainstream education is brought into the equation. You see, at one
end of the spectrum many of us maintain that State mainstream education
is vital, but our usual caveat on this is that it should not be an exclusive
mono-cultural non-Indigenous domain.
At the other end of the spectrum many of us say that State mainstream
education should not envelop our languages and cultures; that our cultural
education is solely our business. The tenor of this opposition can be found
in the words of Pearson, who Purdie et al. quoted as saying categorically
that:
Schools are not the places for cultural and linguistic transmission, and we must
stop looking to schools to save our languages. This is because the primary
purpose of schools is for our children to obtain a mainstream, Western
education, including full fluency in English.359
Pearson is by no means alone in thinking this. Purdie et al. in reflecting on
the 2000 Katu Kalpa report on bilingual education in Australia also
observed that “the report gathered evidence from some Aboriginal
communities that felt that the school was not the place for languages, which
were better taught in the family and community context”.360
The same standpoint has been found in international Indigenous
community dialogue as well. In a study conducted in a ‘remote’ Canadian
First Nations community of Ojibwe speakers located in the Sioux Lookout
district some Indigenous Elders were found to be strongly opposed to their
language being taught in State government school. 361 The researcher, Dr
Seth A. Agbo, reported that one informant said, “Parents speak the language
to the students at home and I don't think it's important that the school
wastes time on teaching First Nations language. The kids need to know how
to speak and write English” whilst another said, “Learning the Indian
Language is not important. It is important for them to spend more time on
N Pearson as cited in N Purdie et al., op.cit., p.191.
ibid., p.33
361 SA Agbo, ‘First Nations perspectives on transforming the status of culture and language in
schooling’, Journal of American Indian Education, vol.43, no.1, 2004, pp.1-31.
359
360
[96]
English”.362 These views were tempered within this study with opinion to the
contrary, but I did begin to wonder whether it is the case that where
Indigenous languages are more likely to be strong State schools are not
always seen as important sites for teaching our languages and cultures.
In his research study undertaken with Indigenous American First Nations
teachers, which I first referenced in Chapter 2, Begaye pointed out that
“teachers clearly noted that religious aspects, ceremonies and sacred things
do not belong in schools...”.363 Begaye did however point out that these
same teachers were not exactly clear “...where they drew the lines between
what should be taught in the classroom and what should be left to certain
members of the community”.364 These points constructively illustrate
Indigenous concern about the scope of cultural education offered within
State mainstream education programmes, particularly as an academic
subject of curricula. Some Indigenous peoples feel so strongly about these
spiritual matters that they would rather not see our languages and cultures
taught at all in non-Indigenous school frameworks, whilst other Indigenous
peoples see that Indigenous-medium education has the capacity to work
around this.
If you reflect back upon what I have explained about the spiritual nature of
our languages, and the spiritual ontology from which our languages derive,
you may well appreciate that we would hold reluctance over these aspects of
our culture being fused into an essentially non-Indigenous learning
environment. The difficulty is that many of us see that language as the
spiritual face of country cannot be cauterised from culture for academic
study in a Western sense. Walsh certainly found that the cultural politics of
education here in New South Wales is similarly involved wherein some of us
will say “...that only Aboriginal students should be allowed to learn an
Aboriginal language” and some of us will say “...it must be taught by an
Aboriginal person...”.365 These debates are ongoing within Indigenous
communities, and sway back and forth between wanting to share culture
under the banner of reconciliation and wanting to protect culture from
misunderstanding, misinterpretation and decontextualisation.
I was impressed, however, with the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment
Authority’s [VCAA] acceptance that some of us, whilst not opposing outright
the teaching of our languages and cultures within State mainstream
education systems, nonetheless hold significant reservations about who gets
362
363
364
365
ibid., p.13 & 14.
T Begaye, op.cit., p.50.
ibid.
M Walsh, Raising Babel..., op.cit, p.115 & 116.
[97]
to learn it. They realise that “many Aboriginal people feel strongly that their
children must have the right to learn their own Language before other
children”.366 Whilst the VCAA certainly see a role for State education in
teaching Indigenous languages and cultures they appear to understand well
that it is a complex matter, especially when “Aboriginal children may feel
shamed at their lack of knowledge of Language and risk falling behind if
other children find themselves able to learn their Language more rapidly”.367
It has to be said that shame underscores one of the greatest fears we have
with regard to allowing our languages and cultures to be taught publicly in
State mainstream education systems. Walsh, I think rather succinctly hit
the nail on the head in realising that:
In NSW schools programmes in Aboriginal Studies have been in place for about
11 years and Aboriginal parents have looked askance as non-Aboriginal
students have performed ‘better’ than their Aboriginal fellow students. The
result has been embarrassment and shame as Aboriginal students feel that
outsiders know more about Aboriginal society and culture than they do. Parents
therefore are wary of having the same thing happen when Aboriginal language
learning programmes are introduced.368
The issue of shame has a deep psychology to it, illustrating just how
emotional our opposition to the teaching of our Indigenous languages and
cultures within State education systems can become, but it also supports
the concept of Indigenous specific Indigenous-medium education, which
despite cries of separatism may well present a way of addressing this.
Walsh moved on to also point out that “...some Aboriginal parents feel that
mixed classes are better because it will lead to better mutual understanding
between Aboriginal people and others”.369 I made mention of this line of
reasoning in Chapter 3 when I quoted both Pearson and Christie espousing
the value of all Australians learning an Indigenous language. The VCAA
appears well aware that many of us have reluctance about the teaching of
our Indigenous languages and cultures within State mainstream education
systems, but they also recognise that “many Aboriginal people are also
aware that for non-Aboriginal children to learn about their Language and
culture is potentially a very significant tool for raising cultural awareness
and reducing racism in the broader community”.370 But reconciliation isn’t
just about sharing culture it is also about us accessing culture. The Board
of Studies New South Wales, like the VCAA, has a strong sense of this.
In the current ‘Aboriginal Studies K-10 syllabus’ the Board of Studies New
South Wales made it clear that “...languages are integral to the sense of
366
367
368
369
370
VCAA, op.cit, p.11.
ibid., p.12
M Walsh, Raising Babel..., op.cit., p.115.
ibid.
VCAA, op.cit., p.12.
[98]
identity of all Aboriginal people and that meaningful reconciliation must
address those issues to do with the maintenance of language and
culture”,371 but they also recognise that “providing all students with access
to learning about Aboriginal languages also assists in the processes of
reconciliation by increasing cross-cultural understanding between
Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians”.372 There is certainly a tangible
admission to be read here that State mainstream education in New South
Wales accepts the challenge represented in the ‘maintenance of language
and culture’. The question for us will almost always come back to how this
can be done effectively, especially if our languages remain academic
‘subjects’ conducted in a way that more readily sponsors language
awareness than language re-acquisition for re-uptake of mother tongue.
For many of us the teaching of Indigenous languages and cultures within
State mainstream education systems remains tangled up in a delicate
balancing act between the need to ensure that we have access to culturally
apposite education, that we are not ‘shamed’ out of our cultural education
and our need to ensure that we are adequately provided with the
opportunity to gain skills and knowledge relevant to the broader dominant
frameworks of society. There are always going to be struggles within this
balancing act which oscillate between our concern that State mainstream
education systems present as essentially assimilative in nature and nonIndigenous concerns centred on the ‘over-doing’ of culture, a problem I’ve
encountered more than once. I can certainly attest personally to the fact
that we have been discussing how to achieve this balance for years; in
Australia we seem to have been having this very conversation since the 70’s.
All these years later we are still looking to work out how this can be done.
For those of us who are in favour of continuing to negotiate space within
State mainstream education systems reconciliation has become an
important avenue of agitation, as have the values enshrined in the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which we see as
creating a mandate for State recognition of the importance of teaching
Indigenous languages and cultures within State mainstream education
systems, in accordance with our own educational aspirations. In line with
this the United Nation’s International Expert Group on Indigenous
Languages made the recommendation that Nation States “guarantee the
right to mother tongue education for indigenous children, regardless of the
Board of Studies New South Wales, Aboriginal Languages K-10 Syllabus, Board of Studies NSW,
Sydney, 2003, p.5.
372 ibid., p.10.
371
[99]
number of its speakers and ensure the teaching of those languages to
indigenous children who do not know them”.373
This recommendation synchronises well with the words of Calma, who in his
role as our Social Justice Commissioner poignantly asserted that “while we
must give Indigenous students access to the Western world, to higher
education and Western employment, it should not be at the expense of
traditional knowledeges – we must not lock Indigenous students out of
traditional learning”.374 Somewhat differently to this Indigenous Chippewa
Professor Duane Champagne contended that “traditional education alone
does not sufficiently prepare students for participation and competition
within the national and global economy”.375 Neither Calma nor Champagne
are talking about an ‘either/or’ situation, they are drawing attention to the
reality that the teaching of our Indigenous languages and cultures has to sit
alongside teaching in the Western domain so that we can gain skills and
knowledge to enable us to function productively in both Indigenous and
non-Indigenous contexts alike.376
In the widely valued ‘National Indigenous Languages Survey Report 2005’ it
was observed that:
English is promoted as ‘the power language’ which opens doors to education
and employment. While this is undoubtedly true, too often proponents of this
view ignore or undermine the important role of the Indigenous languages, and
advance the misconception that it is a matter of one or the other.377
This report went to great lengths to explain how this viewpoint is now
considered regressive, and that there are significant cognitive merits to
becoming bilingual. In fact they made it plain that “academic growth in a
student’s first language is linked to second-language academic success”.378
So, far from being an impediment to the acquisition of Standard Australian
English, Indigenous languages may well function to advantage this. Of
course, there is a difference here between those of us who already have
mother tongue, and those of us who are seeking to revive mother tongue.
Under this second scenario State mainstream education systems are
especially looked to for help.
It is, of course, all well and good to look to State mainstream education
systems as a way forward for facilitating Indigenous language revival, but we
have to be matter-of-fact too and acknowledge that whilst we may look to
United Nations Economic and Social Council, op.cit., p.9.
T Calma, ‘Sustaining Indigenous education, language and culture’, Public Administration Today,
no.17, Oct – Dec 2008, p. 20.
375 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples,
op.cit., p.148.
376 ibid.
377 National Indigenous Language Survey 2005, op.cit., p.19.
378 ibid., p.36.
373
374
[100]
mainstream education with hope and aspiration, we often do so with a
certain measure of caution and anxiety; caution and anxiety provoked
through memory of past experiences that have been psychologically scarring
for us as individuals and us as whole communities. Professor Jon Reyhner,
in referring to America’s First Nations peoples, made it clear that:
Any effort at revitalizing indigenous languages in schools will have to overcome
the deep suspicion that some Indigenous people harbor towards schooling.
American Indians and other Indigenous peoples distrust schools because
historically they have been colonial instruments designed to eradicate Native
languages and to assimilate Indians into the white, Euro-American, and
Christian culture.379
One way of dealing with this is to take a leaf out of the reconciliation book
and just take the time to acknowledge the past. One of the first recognitions
Bougie made in her study for instance was that the 1996 Canadian Royal
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples admitted that “...the passing down of
Aboriginal languages across the generations was disrupted by residential
schools in Canada, where the use of Aboriginal languages was
prohibited”.380 The prohibition of the use of our languages and the praxis of
our cultures within State mainstream education systems has been well
documented and demonstrates beyond all measure of doubt the extent of
the damage that we have experienced through non-Indigenous education.
McCarty certainly made it clear that it is “...important to highlight the
singular role of compulsory English-only schooling in promoting language
loss. For more than two centuries, schools were the only institutions both to
demand exclusive use of English and prohibit use of the mother tongue”.381
In Australia, our experience was no different. “Decades of Australian
government policies and practices have banned and discouraged Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people from speaking our languages...These
policies and practices lasted in Australia right up to the 1970s”.382 In more
recent debates over the dismantling of bilingual education in the Northern
Territory the use of our languages within State mainstream education
systems has once again come under fire causing us to wonder just how
much has really changed. Calma, in taking up the issue of government
opposition to bilingual education, compellingly asked “Are we certain that
education is about creating a mono-cultural, mono-lingual world with
homogenous knowledge systems and values? Are we certain that Western
knowledge is always superior to Indigenous knowledge?”.383 These questions
J Reyhner, Indigenous Language Immersion Schools for Strong Indigenous Identities, 2011, p.3,
<http://www2.nau.edu/jar/Heritage.pdf>
380 E Bougie, op.cit., p.73.
381 TL McCarty, op.cit.p.148.
382 Australian Human Rights Commission, op.cit., p.58.
383 T Calma, op.cit., p.20.
379
[101]
challenge State mainstream education systems to reconsider what their
cultural priorities are? Is State education all about Standard Australian
English and Westcentric Australian culture, or is it about the whole
linguistic and cultural landscape of this continent?
There is, within the State mainstream education systems of Australia,
strong evidence that work is well underway in answering the demands of
reconciliation and Indigenous cultural rights through recognition of the
importance of teaching Indigenous languages and cultures, and more
particularly the role that State mainstream education systems have already
undertaken in partnering us to maintain and revive our languages. The
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority [VCAA] for instance has
made it clear in its P-10 standards and protocols for Victorian schools
involved in Aboriginal language and culture reclamation that:
Aboriginal people are still working towards control over their own cultures,
Languages, lands and community life. In addition, both Aboriginal and nonAboriginal people are gradually seeing increased efforts to share the burden of
this goal. The accreditation of a program for Aboriginal Language learning in
Victorian schools supports this reclamation of self-determination through
reclamation and revival of Language and culture. 384
The acceptance of our entitlement to self-determination is extremely
significant here as an unambiguous affirmation of our right to have a
greater measure of control in facilitating our cultural education through our
nation’s education systems.
The VCAA recognised that they do have an active role to play in partnering
us in the revitalisation and reclamation of our languages and cultures.
“Schools should see themselves as implementing the work that communities
are doing, providing a means to pass on the reclamation of Language to
students in a more focused way than is possible with community-internal
resources alone”.385 This is by no means a new realisation for Australia’s
State mainstream education system. In New South Wales, in 2000, 3 years
before the 2003 Aboriginal Languages K-10 syllabus came into being, the
Board of Studies New South Wales carried out an interesting series of case
studies into existing Aboriginal language programmes. At that time they
recognised that whilst:
NSW communities and schools are a long way from offering first language
speaker programs...more and more communities and schools are looking at the
establishment of Aboriginal language programs as an avenue for the revival of
Aboriginal languages within NSW and as a way of promoting reconciliation. 386
VCAA, op.cit., p.5
ibid., p.7.
386 Board of Studies New South Wales, Teaching Aboriginal Languages: Case Studies, Board of Studies
NSW, Sydney, 2000, p.9.
384
385
[102]
McCarty in considering the question can schools save Indigenous
languages? replied no “but”, and followed with the observation that “...there
are few instances of successful revitalization in which schools have not
played a crucial role”.387 The word ‘schools’ here is a general term because
some schools will be crucial, whilst others will be obstructive. It all comes
down to the cultural environment of a school and how Principals and school
Executives themselves seek to answer policy. In Australia, the role of State
education providers in supporting our languages was made clear in the first
national Indigenous education policy, the 1989 National Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Education Policy [NATSIEP], which was introduced
after many years of hard work and protracted negotiation some 22 years
ago.388 In their Executive Summary Purdie et al. acknowledge that one of the
key goals behind NATSIEP was “...to develop programs to support the
maintenance and continued use of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
languages”389.
If language maintenance, at least, has been on the national agenda for this
long I am caused to wonder - why in 2011 are we still in conversation about
the importance of teaching and learning our languages and cultures,
especially within State mainstream education, when clearly its importance
has been established well before now. We perhaps have to consider just how
seriously this goal was taken, and how well it was actually implemented
across the variant State and Territory education structures if we are still
pontificating over this. Purdie et al. did however note that the inaugurating
of a national curriculum within Australia presents “...a timely forum for
considering the place of Indigenous languages in school curricula...”.390 I
can only hope that it does. Whilst there are most assuredly success stories
to report, we are yet to see Indigenous language education wholesale across
the nation’s school days.
As for New South Wales, in 2007 a phone survey conducted by Dr Mari
Rhydwen together with Enri Parolin, Dr Jennifer Munro and Susan Poetsch
under the auspice of the New South Wales Department of Education and
Training and the Board of Studies New South Wales reviewed the state of
existing Aboriginal language programmes in New South Wales.391 The survey
TL McCarty, ‘Schools as strategic tools for Indigenous language revitalisation: Lessons from Native
America’, in NH Hornberger (ed) Can Schools Save Indigenous Languages: Policy and Practice on Four
Continents, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndsmill, Basingstoke, UK, p. 161.
388 ST Williams. op.cit.
389 N Purdie et al., op.cit., p.viii.
390 ibid., p.ix.
391 M Rhydwen, E Parolin, J Munro & S Poetsch, Report on School-based Aboriginal Language Program
Activity in NSW in 2006, New South Wales Dept of Education & Training, Board of Studies NSW, 2007,
<http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/primary/languages/aboriginal/assets/pdf/re
port_2006.pdf>
387
[103]
confirmed that 46 schools were known to have a functional Aboriginal
language programme within New South Wales covering approximately 10
languages. Of these 46 schools, 41 were State based, 4 were in the Catholic
system with 1 independent. Broken down further these programmes
amounted to 25 at the primary level, 9 at the secondary level, 3 central
schools, whilst 4 were still initiating programmes at the time and 5 were
unable to respond.392 The study also revealed that there were a further 25
schools that either lapsed their programmes, merely expressed interest
undertaking a language programme, or had run a “one-off” project.393
At the time Rhydwen et al. reported that:
School activity varied from one half hour per fortnight to four periods per week
in schools running the 100-hour mandatory language study programs. There
were four schools running the 100-hour program. However, the great majority of
schools held classes once a week. Two schools were running pilot programs: one
primary and the other a high school. A few schools withdraw students for the
class but generally all the students in a class study the language in primary
school, usually meeting HSIE outcomes. Many high schools are moving towards
394
running 100-hour mandatory programs.
Those running the 100 hour/4 periods per week programme have a far
greater chance of moving language forward under the banner of
revitalisation. I am, however, somewhat curious about what ‘many’
constitutes in terms of the number of school intending to move towards this
in the future. As for the majority running the 1 class a week timetable it is
quite unlikely that these programmes would advance language knowledge
beyond awareness. As to the success of the 100 hour programmes there is
little in the way of conclusive documentation to give a clear picture as to
what the outcomes of these programmes might be. Despite personal request
for further information, I was unable at the time of writing to reveal any
additional significant data.
Now it has to be said that perhaps these programmes would be more wide
spread with more ‘on the ground’ support. Rhydwen et al. did flag issues
with Aboriginal language programming, for instance “several schools spoke
of difficulties recruiting and retaining staff, lack of resources and
remoteness from access to support”.395 I will actually be addressing these
matters shortly. Here I want to make the observation that as you will have
read the ‘paper work’ has in place for these programmes for a while now
with the current syllabus document and policy at both the State and
National level – at the National level since 1989. So, why aren’t these
programmes better resourced for success? Why aren’t Aboriginal language
392
393
394
395
ibid., p.2-3.
ibid.
ibid., p.3.
ibid., p.5.
[104]
and culture programmes more widespread than they currently are? I am
given to wonder whether the obvious chasm between theory and practice
has a lot to do with how seriously our language and cultural education is
really taken.
Purdie et al. addressed the question – why should Indigenous languages be
taught in school? in their discussion and recommendations section subtitled
‘Purpose of teaching Indigenous language in Australian schools’.396 In doing
so they determined that our Indigenous languages should be taught within
State mainstream education systems for two fundamental reasons, i. “the
responsibility of schools to recognise and promote the place of Indigenous
Australians as the nations’ first people who have enriched modern
Australian culture with their cultures and languages”,397 and ii. the
“cognitive and academic” benefits of undertaking learning in a language
other than English.398 Interestingly, what is perhaps not said explicitly
enough for me is the plain right of our children to be educated in mother
tongue and mother culture as well as that of the dominant society.
Thus far I have concentrated on considering the importance of teaching
Indigenous languages and cultures, we now need to focus on the importance
of learning Indigenous language and cultures. In this regard my core focus
is naturally our Indigenous students, especially with regard to the support
and growth of their cultural selfhood. Of course the project brief
underpinning this research study is quite explicit in requesting an
examination of the correlation between an Indigenous student learning
language and culture and measurements of scholastic outcome. I’ll be
addressing this in detail, but I want to begin by reiterating that my position
is that cultural proficiency is its own educational reward, and as a matter of
human right should not be conditioned on the basis of whether or not an
Indigenous student’s Western scholastic adeptness is increased or otherwise
as a result of learning mother tongue and mother culture.
This position is not dissimilar to that espoused by the Hawaiian
Nãwahîokalani’ õpu Laboratory school, which is a school annexed to a
Hawaiian university. According to McCarty this school runs “a fullimmersion, early childhood through high school affiliation of programs...”
with an embedded “...explicit understanding that use of the Hawaiian
language has priority over English”.399 McCarty very interestingly noted that
“...the school reflects the Aha Punana Leo philosophy that school
396
397
398
399
N Purdie et al., op.cit., pp.191-193.
ibid., p.190
ibid., p.192.
TL McCarty, ‘Schools as strategic tools...’ op.cit., p.167.
[105]
achievement is secondary to linguistic and cultural survival”.400 This view
runs counter to many Indigenous and non-Indigenous claims regarding
education, yet this programme has yielded extraordinary scholastic
outcomes for its Indigenous population. McCarty reported that “on English
stardardized tests, Nawahi students’ score as well as or better than their
non-immersion peers”.401 McCarty also affirmed that “the school has a 100
per cent high school graduation rate and a college attendance rate of
approximately 80 percent”.402
What struck me most by McCarty’s commentary on this particular Hawaiian
language and culture programme is the quote she recorded from personal
conversation with Professor William H. Wilson, who is well known for his
leadership in Hawaiian immersion education. Wilson said, “We have
succeeded because we have rejected the measure of success used by the
dominant society – speaking English and academic achievement – even
though our children all can do that...” instead the school is judged “...on
Hawaiian language and culture achievement and holding Hawaiian language
and culture high”.403 This strong valuing of our languages and cultures
enmeshes with the underpinning context of Purdie’s assertion that “for
many students who speak an Indigenous language, the language used in
school plays a role in their educational outcomes”.404 I would move that
further and say that for all Indigenous students this may well be the case,
regardless of whether or not we have proficiency in our mother tongues.
There is a strong message to be sensed here that suggests that our learning
of mother tongue and mother culture may be a strong indicator in the
current drive to ‘close the gap’ between our educational outcomes and those
of non-Indigenous Australia. This ‘gap’ has long been a concern both
internationally and here in Australia. In their snapshot resource sheet on
‘closing the gap’ Sue Helme and Professor Stephen Lamb listed four key
barriers to our success at school – physical, cultural, economic and
informational.405 It is interesting that ‘cultural’ appears as one of these four,
though it is also interesting that it is mentioned as relating to
discrimination. Notwithstanding this Helme and Lamb have importantly
highlighted that in our ‘remote’ communities one major factor for our nonattendance at school is “...a lack of recognition by schools of Indigenous
ibid.
ibid., p.168.
402 ibid.
403 HW Wilson cited in TL McCarty, ibid.
404 N Purdie, ‘A way forward for Indigenous languages’, Research Developments, vol.21, no,21, art.2,
2009, p.2.
405 S Helme & S Lamb, Closing the School Completion Gap for Indigenous Students, Resource Sheet
No.6, Closing the Gap Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra &
Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, 2011, p.1.
400
401
[106]
culture...”.406 What surprised me most about this discussion on closing the
gap is that whilst the ‘culture of school’ was most definitely addressed, the
primacy of our Indigenous languages especially for our ‘remote’ communities
was given in my view scant attention.
In reading Helme and Lamb’s discussion on the culture of school I was
reminded of a claim that Champagne had made that worried me greatly “speaking an indigenous or non-official language is a clear marker of
disadvantage in terms of schooling”.407 I can see how a statement such as
this could be ‘jumped’ on and decontextualised in-order to substantiate not
teaching our Indigenous languages and cultures within State mainstream
education systems, yet as Champagne is at pains to point out “indigenous
communities often resist state-provided education that does not show
respect for...[our] traditional knowledge, values and livelihoods”.408
Champagne’s greatest concern is Indigenous access to dominant Western
social and economic frameworks, but I can see what he means about the
disadvantage of having mother tongue as first and only tongue. The learning
needed for this access is provided in State school systems, but we are
impeded in acquiring this learning through these schools if instruction
within our mother tongues is not provided, or if our mother tongues and
mother cultures are not valued as integral to the education process.
I have given a great deal of attention to our fundamental human right to
receive educational instruction in our own languages and cultures, but this
right alone as you will have read may not be enough to justify doing so from
a Western standpoint. If, however, the importance of teaching within and
about or Indigenous languages and cultures can be substantiated on the
basis of ‘closing the gap’ this impasse may turn around. Purdie recognised
that “addressing the state of Indigenous languages in schools may go some
way towards addressing the gap in educational achievement between
Indigenous and non-Indigenous students”409 though I rather suspect that
‘some way’ would be conditional upon the degree to which our Indigenous
languages and cultures are prioritised and afforded time and space. That
said, Purdie does point out that:
Most teachers of Indigenous languages in schools believe that, in addition to
building Indigenous students’ cultural identity and self-esteem, the positive
experience of learning about their traditional language and culture flows
through into students overall learning.410
ibid., p.4.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples,
op.cit., p.133.
408 ibid., p.139.
409 N Purdie, loc.cit.
410 ibid., p.3.
406
407
[107]
The hypothesis that Indigenous students will learn more effectively when
their mother tongues and mother cultures are afforded respect within
educational programming has been suggested within the literature in
statements such as “the literature shows evidence that indicates that
exposure to Aboriginal cultures and language within schools can be
associated with increased self-esteem and positive learning outcomes among
Aboriginal children”411 and “bilingual education programs have been
attributed with improving relations between schools and Indigenous
communities, improving self-confidence among Indigenous children, and
improving learning outcomes”.412 There are also pockets of research which
focus on specific aspects of Indigenous learning, for example Associate
Professor Yatta Kanu’s study of incorporating Indigenous perspective into
social studies curricula in which she concluded that:
...it appears that the integration of Aboriginal cultural knowledge and
perspectives in student learning outcomes, instructional methods and
resources, assessment, and as part of the philosophical underpinning of the
curriculum, results in positive outcomes. These positive outcomes included
higher test scores, better conceptual understanding, higher level thinking, and
improved self-confidence.413
These forms of statement and research speak to the general thesis that has
long stood within academia that cultural perspective is a significant
informant for scholastic outcomes of Indigenous students. However, as
Kanu was quick to point out there are macro socio-economic issues at play
which make the identification of a ‘quick fix’ solution to Indigenous
educational disparity unlikely. Even so, this thesis has been accepted as
legitimate. The Victorian State education system certainly acknowledged
that “...for Aboriginal children, a school environment which positively
reflects the cultural values learned at home is closely related to attendance
and achievement”.414 Along a similar vein the New South Wales Department
of Education and Training recently recognised that the learning of Aboriginal
languages can “enhance the capacity for Aboriginal students to build on
their knowledge of Aboriginal cultures, strengthen their identity, self-esteem
and cultural pride”.415 This last observation is particularly encouraging
because it focuses more on our cultural needs than merely academic
success.
MJ Norris, ‘Aboriginal languages in Canada: A decade in review 1996 to 2006’, Aboriginal Policy
Studies, vol.1, no.2, 2011, p.6.
412 N Purdie, P Tripcony, G Boulton-Lewis, J Fanshawe & A Gunstone, Positive Self-Identity for
Indigenous Students and its Relationship to School Outcomes, A project funded by the Commonwealth
Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra, ACT, 2000, p.16.
413 Y Kanu, ‘Increasing school success among Aboriginal students: Responsive curriculum or
macrostructural variables affecting schooling?’, Diaspora, Indigenous and Minority Education, vol.1,
no.1, 2007, p.38.
414 VCAA, op.cit., p.7
415 New South Wales Department of Education and Training, 2011 Aboriginal Language Program
Guidelines, NSW Dept of Education & Training, Sydney, NSW, 2011, p.2.
411
[108]
Overarchingly though, it appears from a Western point-of-view that the
biggest concern regarding the importance of us undertaking learning in our
own Indigenous languages and cultures is whether or not our English
literacy and numeracy development is enhanced, suggesting that if it is not
the importance of us learning in our languages and cultures may be
diminished. The importance of the transmission of our languages and
cultures from one generation to the next seems not to be valued as highly.
Fortunately for us, Purdie et al., in concert with the National Indigenous
Languages Survey 2005, found through their consultation of literature that
“research suggests that if literacy is established in a child’s first language, it
is easier to switch to another language”.416 They also found that “research
also suggests that childhood bilingualism enhances cognitive ability by
promoting classification skills, concept formation, analogical reasoning,
visual-spatial skills, and creativity gains”.417
This form of evidence inevitably makes the importance of Indigenous
students undertaking learning in mother tongue and mother culture
through State mainstream education systems more agreeable. But how
much hard research evidence is there really to support this thesis? On the
basis of my own survey of the literature I came to the conclusion that whilst
statements are to be found that indicate ‘the research says’, ‘the literature
says’, there is not actually a significant body of research evidence on the
interconnectivity between our learning of and in mother tongue and mother
culture and our educational attainment in terms of Western measurements
of scholastic success. The most compelling evidence I did uncover centred
on international experience of Indigenous-medium, often language
revitalisation, programming, wherein mother tongue and mother culture are
the core medium across the curriculum.
It is interesting that Professor Stephen May and Dr Richard Hill drew the
same conclusion as myself about the paucity of research data, though they
were referencing Māori-medium education specifically, and in doing so noted
that “there remains an ongoing dearth of information on the factors that
contribute specifically to the educational effectiveness of particular Māorimedium programs, and the related academic outcomes of their students”.418
In contrast to this, however, Sámi linguistics Professor Vuokko Hirvonen in
analysing the Sámi experience pointed to recommendations put forward by
N Purdie et al., Indigenous Language Programmes...., p.19.
ibid.
418 S May & R Hill, ‘Maori-medium education: Current issues and challenges’, in NH Hornberger (ed),
Can Schools Save Indigenous Languages: Policy and Practice on Four Continents, Palgrave Macmillan,
Houndsmill, Basingstoke, UK, 2008, p.68.
416
417
[109]
well known Sámi expert and leader Indigenous Sámi Professor Ole Henrik
Magga and his colleagues, who Hirvonen quoted as confirming:
All education programmes for Indigenous children and youth...based on insights
from solid research over many years...[show]...that mainly mother tongue
medium bilingual education...is superior to all other forms of education
practices in order to achieve literacy and generally effective, including ‘the
development of the child’s personality talents and mental and physical abilities
to their fullest potential.419
Not dissimilarly to Hirvonen McCarty likewise confirmed that “longitudinal
data show that by the fourth grade, immersion students, not surprisingly,
outperformed comparable non-immersion students on assessments of oral
and written Navajo”.420 Although this evidence pertains more to the
effectiveness of Indigenous-medium education reaching Indigenous cultural
goals it nonetheless speaks to the successes of learning within mother
tongue and mother culture. McCarty also revealed in context to Navajo
immersion that:
By the fourth grade, immersion students performed as well on local tests of oral
English as comparable non-immersion students; immersion students performed
better on local assessments of English writing, and were ‘way ahead’ on
standardized test of mathematics.421
Navajo students “...were acquiring Navajo as a second, heritage language
‘without cost’ to their English-language development or academic
achievement”.422
McCarty has, very significantly, brought attention to an outstanding
longitudinal study undertaken in Canada between 1982 and 1996, which
looked at “...700,000 students representing 15 languages in five
participating school systems...”.423 The authors of this study, Thomas and
Collier reported that “the most powerful predictor of academic success”,424
was immersion in educational programming “...for at least four to seven
years in the native/heritage language”.425 McCarty similarly cited another
study centred on Spanish speaking children who performed significantly
better in English and Maths when the children concerned were exposed to
“...their native language for five years before being transitioned to all-English
classes...”.426 These studies can be considered proof positive that learning in
an Indigenous language medium is far from an impediment to learning
Western literacy and numeracy.
OH Magga et al. as cited in V Hirvonen, ‘Out on the fells, I feel like a Sámi: Is there linguistic and
cultural equality in the Sámi school’, in NH Hornberger (ed), Can Schools Save Indigenous Languages:
Policy and Practice in Four Continents, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndsmill, Basingstoke, UK, p.15.
420 TL McCarty, ‘Schools as strategic tools...’, op.cit., p.164.
421 ibid.,p.168.
422 ibid.
423 TL McCarty, ‘Revitalising Indigenous languages...’, p.149.
424WP Thomas & V Collier as cited in TL McCarty, ibid.
425ibid.
426 ibid.
419
[110]
Here in New South Wales research of this magnitude and calibre simply
appears unavailable. There are some studies though, that provide some
evidence concerning the learning of Aboriginal mother tongue and Aboriginal
scholastic success. Purdie et al. for instance made a case study of a New
South Wales Catholic school involved in teaching Gumbaynggirr in
partnership with Muurrbay, the Aboriginal language organisation I first
introduced you to in Chapter 3.427 The example of St Mary’s is noteworthy
because of the positive feedback that Purdie et al. report from
parents/carers about the schools support of our languages and cultures. It
has to be said though that this school had a 96% Aboriginal student
population, which amounted to 49 students, indicating that the school was
predominantly Aboriginal and small.428 Given this, it is not surprising that
the school stood out as being more amenable to the teaching and learning of
Gumbaynggirr language and culture.
In this situation the parents/carers and community are overwhelmingly
Aboriginal so any aspirations they hold regarding cultural education are far
more likely to receive full hearing. Further, there is less chance of opposition
from non-Aboriginal persons not welcoming of our languages and cultures.
When a school is overwhelmingly Indigenous it seems clear that the chances
of having our languages and cultures enter the school curriculum are
meaningfully increased, though we only have to look at the Northern
Territory experience, as discussed in the preceding chapter, to understand
that having an overwhelming majority in the school does not automatically
mean that we will be heard. Simpson, Caffery and McConvell certainly
inform us that:
If community members want mother tongue instruction for their children, or
want their children’s mother tongue to be strengthened at school, acceding to
their request will probably create a better functioning school. When the mother
tongue is seen to be valued at school, children and their parents are more likely
to feel positive about learning the dominant language. Experience suggests that
decisions on education which do not involve the communities concerned are
likely to lead to long term failure. The importance of this has been recognised for
many years in Australia.429
Another study pertinent to New South Wales was undertaken by Professor
Paul Chandler, in collaboration with Caroline Haid, Caroline Jones, Kevin
Lowe and Jennifer Munro, who sought to look into the question of whether
or not research would ‘back up’ the long claimed assertion that cultural
relevancy in curriculum enhances Indigenous student academic
427N
428
429
Purdie et al., Indigenous Languages Programmes...,op.cit., pp.167–176.
ibid., p.167.
J Simpson, J Caffery & P McConvell, op.cit., p.13.
[111]
performance.430 These
acknowledging that:
authors
began
their
paper
by
importantly
While there are anecdotal accounts of improved attendance, participation and
performance of Aboriginal students as a result of studying Aboriginal languages,
no quantitative research to test such claims nor research into potential benefits
to all students has been carried out. Without high-quality published research,
these claims remain unsubstantiated.431
As to the actual purpose of their study they hypothesised that the learning
of an Aboriginal language, which they recognised as involving the
acquisition of new knowledges of ‘sound’, ‘a new spelling system’ and ‘word
awareness’, “...is likely to promote decoding skills in English”.432
To that end Chandler et al. say that their research was premised on testing
“...the idea that students who were learning an Aboriginal language would
have stronger skills in word awareness and decoding than students who
were not learning an Aboriginal language”.433 In conducting this research
Chandler et al. visited a total of four schools, two of whom had an Aboriginal
language programme and two who did not. One hundred and fourteen
students from years 1 and 2 participated in the research, ninety of whom
were not Aboriginal, eighteen who were and six not culturally identified.434
Given the size of this research study the conclusion reached that “students
did just as well at word awareness whether or not they were learning an
Aboriginal language”435 was to my mind startlingly ineffectual. Whilst I
understand from this paper that this research constitutes a pilot, the
research itself at it was presented was neither helpful nor instructive as to
whether or not Indigenous students do scholastically advance when learning
mother tongue and/or mother culture.
What I find most interesting about the New South Wales context is that the
teaching of Aboriginal languages has actually been well underway for
decades now. In a table published in Purdie et al. it can be seen that
Aboriginal languages have been taught in the State’s mainstream education
system since the 1970’s when Bundjalung-Githabal was introduced at
Woodenbong.436 There are also records of Aboriginal language education
being instituted in the 1980’s at Bowraville (Gumbaynggir), the Red Hill
Environment Education Centre (Wiradjuri) and at Toomelah (Gamilaraay).437
P Chandler, C Haid, C Jones, K Lowe & J Munro, Aboriginal Languages Research: Impact of
Learning an Aboriginal Language on Primary School Students’ Literacy in English, report undertaken
for the Board of Studies New South Wales, 2008, <http://abed.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/files/impact-learning-aboriginal-language-2008.pdf>
431 ibid., p.1.
432 ibid., p.2.
433 ibid.
434 ibid.
435 ibid., p.3.
436 N Purdie et al., Indigenous Language Programmes..., pp.60-63.
437 ibid.
430
[112]
Given that these programmes have been in operation since the 1970’s it
surprises me greatly that more thorough longitudinal research isn’t available
analysing these programmes effectiveness. In particular, I would have
thought that the matter of how important language and culture learning is
for our Aboriginal students would have been of more intensely investigated
than it has.
For all the commentary and the research stating or otherwise proving the
benefits of our children learning their own languages and cultures, and
indeed learning within their own language and cultures, the following
statement stood out for me in a way that no other did:
In Yolŋu epistemology, it is wrong to assume that children are empty vessels. As
such, a Western education for Yolŋu children who are not already confident and
self-assured in their own language and cultural traditions is neither effective nor
ethical.438
I don’t think matters could be expressed any plainer than this. The ethics of
the importance of us being able to learn in our Indigenous languages and
cultures should be beyond question, and should never be held up to
account through any form of Western measurement that pits the importance
of our languages and cultures against those of the dominant society. The
question for State mainstream education systems should not be ‘should we
teach Indigenous languages and cultures?’, though to make that claim
based on the evidence shown above would be sound, rather it should be how
can we teach Indigenous languages and cultures?’.
4.2 Advancing Indigenous Languages and Cultures through Education
Having discussed the importance of teaching and learning Indigenous
languages and cultures the next most logical step is to investigate how best
to go about formally schooling Indigenous languages and cultures for the
advancement of Indigenous learning. In this regard a phrase that is often
used in respect to education is ‘best practice model’. It is an interesting
phrase that focuses on locating the single best way to do something, in this
case educate for the stimulation of cultural learning. The application of this
idea is regularly criticised, and rightly so, because the ‘one size fits’ all
approach is transparently narrow in assuming that all forms of teaching are
the same and that all learners are the same. If we take Australia as our
example it is patently obvious that there are multiple Indigenous cultural
nationhood’s within our country that speak mother tongues and practice
mother culture as first language and culture, and multiple Indigenous
cultural nationhood’s that are either less able or unable to do so.
M Christie, Y Guyula, K Gotha & D Gurruwiwi, ‘The ethics of teaching from country’, Australian
Aboriginal Studies, no.2, 2010, p.72.
438
[113]
In thinking about educational programming in general, and the design of
curricula and application of pedagogy in particular, when it comes to the
teaching and learning of Indigenous languages and cultures an existing
fluency or proficiency situation will more than likely demand a different
“best practice” educational paradigm to a non-fluent/non-proficient
situation. In the case where the medium of language and culture teaching
cannot initially be mother tongue and mother culture, because the teachinglearning interchange is necessarily purposed toward re-acquisition of
mother tongue and mother culture, then as Hinton noted “language
revitalisation usually must include as its largest task the teaching and
learning of the endangered language as a second language”.439 In advising
that this is the case Hinton cautioned that “teaching endangered languages
has important differences from teaching foreign languages or ESL, and
someone who is going to teach an endangered language must keep those
differences in mind...”.440
One such difference, and perhaps the most outstanding difference, is the
spiritual connectivity between language, culture and country. This alone
tells us that ‘best practice’ in advancing our Indigenous languages and
cultures through education is going to require rather specific, culturally
adept pedagogies. In Chapter 3, in quoting Bougie, I highlighted that one of
the complexities of Indigenous language revitalisation was the ecological
knowledge predisposition of our languages which align more readily with our
foundational life way contexts. These complexities hold true not just for
revitalisation, they hold true as well for education, particularly in terms of
pedagogy. On this basis we can definitively say that if ever there is going to
be a ‘best practice’ model that bridges the entire spectrum of
fluency/proficiency through to non-fluency/non-proficiency in terms of a
‘one size fits all’ pedagogy for teaching our Indigenous languages and
cultures it is going to be ‘teaching and learning on country’.
On this basis Bougie drew the conclusion that our foundational life way
situations are most promising for enabling “...young First Nations children
to hear, learn, and use their ancestral language”.441 Hirvonen provided
commentary to the same effect in reflecting upon the testimony of a teacher
of Sámi, who described her pedagogy as one that “...motivates pupils to use
the language actively in order to enhance their knowledge while
simultaneously strengthening their self confidence”.442 This teacher
L Hinton, ‘Teaching methods’ in L Hinton & K Hale (eds), Green Book of Language Revitalisation in
Practice, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 2001, p.179.
440 ibid.
441 E. Bougie, op.cit., p.80.
442 V Hirvonen, op.cit, p.34.
439
[114]
explained that “my students say that they feel like Sámi when they are out
on the fells so I spend a lot of time outside with them”.443 This teacher and
her students “...spend very little time in the classroom” and through this
“they have this Sámi feeling when they are on the fells and outside in
nature, and they like to use the language there”.444
Of course, even though the theoretical accuracy of teaching and learning on
country is to my mind beyond question, there are basic practicalities that
hinder the viability of transitioning this pedagogical theory into practice.
Weather is a case in point, but also in the instance of formal education
structures such as State mainstream education systems the single most
challenging factor that makes the implementation of teaching and learning
on country complicated is the encasement of instruction within the physical
confines of a classroom. At first the idea of teaching and learning on country
may seem all too much, outside an occasional excursion, but there is a very
interesting model that has been implemented at Charles Darwin University
that may remove the seemingly insurmountable obstacles of bringing
learning into line with country in a formal education context.
Professor Michael Christie recently reported on a very impressive Yolŋu
Studies programme currently on offer through Charles Darwin University.445
One of the challenges that Christie discussed with regard to this programme
was how to effectively facilitate the teaching of Yolŋu ways of knowing, doing
and being, bearing in mind that the foremost teachers of these programmes
are always going to be Yolŋu cultural knowledge holders themselves. In that
regard two key problems arose.446 The first was literally the distance
between Darwin and Arnhem Land, which was considerable, making it
difficult for Yolŋu lecturers to go back and forth, or to be off country for
extended periods of time. The second difficulty was teaching within lecture
theatres away from country.447 To overcome this Charles Darwin University
instigated a teaching from country initiative using digital media
technologies.448
The profound importance of teaching from country can be best understood
through the words of Yolŋu Liya-Dhälinymirr Djambarrpuyŋu Elder Yiŋiya
Guyula, who is a lecturer in this programme:
Teaching from Country is: different to the education you get in the classrooms
because the classrooms don’t talk to you. We’re learning out there under a tree,
we’re learning out there in the bush walking around, the trees are always
443
444
445
446
447
448
ibid.
ibid.
M Christie, Y Guyula, K Gotha & D Gurruwiwi, op.cit.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
[115]
communicating with you. The hills, the land, the air are always communicating,
teaching you, and understand every need that Yolŋu children have to go
through.449
In reading Yiŋiya Guyula’s words the full meaning of what I tried to explain
in Chapter 2, about the way we conceptualise language as simultaneously
spirit and country, comes alive for me. Indigenous language learning, if it is
to be properly culturally contextualised, is something that is so tightly
entwined within the spiritual rhythm of country that unless you are in
country, or brought to country in some other way, you can never feel the
spiritual reciprocity of country communicating back to you and educating
you. This is what I mean when I talk about spiritual cognition; country
enables you to think in the spirit being of word.
The cultural digital teaching programmes of Charles Darwin University to
my mind show innovative leadership in bringing country into the classroom.
Learners from Charles Darwin University, who experienced cultural
interchange through digital media, have made comments such as:
‘Teaching from Country changed the way I learned a Yolŋu language. It brought
the walls of the classroom down’
‘It was like we were brought more into the Yolŋu world than they were brought
into ours’
‘Not only did this feel like we were learning cultural content, but also cultural
learning processes and structures’.450
I can only say that Professor Michael Christie together with the Yolŋu Elders
Yiniya Guyula, Kathy (Guthadjaka) Gotha and Dhäŋgal Gurruwiwi have
provided us with an outstanding example of a worthwhile way to proceed
with working to secure the foundational Indigenous pedagogy of teaching
and learning on country within language and culture learning that would
otherwise be completely culturally decontextualised into a Western
epistemological framework.
Outside the pedagogy of teaching and learning on country the teaching of
our Indigenous languages and cultures in pre-existing speech proficiency
situations often falls within the provenance of bilingual education. Here in
Australia we are most familiar with this now contentious education
paradigm. In the Northern Territory a “staircase model” is used which is
premised upon exponentially increasing learning within the medium of
Standard Australian English whilst simultaneously reducing learning within
an Indigenous medium.451 In the preschool year learning in mother tongue
extends to all but .5 of an hour in the school day. This is then progressively
widens so that by year 4 learning in mother tongue parallels with learning in
Standard Australian English at 2.5 hours. Thereafter teaching winds down
449
450
451
Yolŋu Elder Yiniya Guyula cited in M Christie et al., ibid., p.71.
Students quoted in M Christie et al., ibid., p.77.
N Purdie et al, Indigenous language Programmes..., p.21.
[116]
in mother tongue until the senior years of schooling are reached, wherein 4
hours a day are dedicated to learning in Standard Australian English with
only 1 hour in Indigenous medium education.452
Whilst the time allotted to learning within both an Indigenous and nonIndigenous medium under the Northern Territory bilingual model is
theoretically equal over the entire schooling spectrum, because of its
increase/decrease equation I can see why bilingual education is essentially
considered an English transfer model. Within the international literature,
however, bilingual education is often discussed with reference to immersion
education. In New Zealand for instance levels of immersion are applied,
ranging from 81-100% level 1 immersion through to 12-30% level 4
immersion in order to distinguish between what can be considered an
immersion programme and what can be considered a bilingual
programme.453 Only the level 1 category is considered immersion, all the rest
are considered bilingual. That is because immersion, as the name suggests,
is premised on immersing the learner wholly within the epistemological
domain of their mother tongue and mother culture.454
Under New Zealand’s conceptualisation the difference between bilingual and
immersion education basically comes down to a matter of time; that is how
much time is spent learning within an Indigenous-medium as opposed to an
English language medium. In this regard New Zealand’s immersion
programmes are those programmes “most often identified directly with the
separate, whole-school programmes that have come to represent the Māorimedium movement”.455 On this basis we can see that immersion education
in New Zealand at least is more readily associated with Indigenous
independent, usually community based, education as opposed to State
provided education. Interestingly Champagne, expressed firm disagreement
with this by noting that “the recent move towards community-based
education and local control has not, and probably will not close the gap with
the non-Indigenous population in terms of access to education and
educational performance in the foreseeable future”.456
I remained somewhat unconvinced regarding the veracity of Champagne’s
contention based on the evidence I will shortly present. I will say here that it
can of course be argued that each educational situation is unique. A school
in a ‘remote’ community within Australia is hardly likely to not be
ibid.
S May & R Hill, op.cit., p.66.
454 ibid.
455 ibid.
456 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples,
op.cit., p.149.
452
453
[117]
considered community based, even if it is State run. Champagne moved on
to conclude that “community-based education and language programs need
adequate funding and support from states”. This is certainly hard to refute,
and his assertion that “...indigenous education will require partnership
between indigenous communities and state education structures and
policymakers” whether or not education is community owned and controlled
remains a reasonable proposition.457 That said, the New Zealand concept of
immersion is unique. Most other conceptualisations of difference between
bilingual and immersion education centre on educational purpose.
This is where matters can become highly confusing because in other
conceptualisations bilingual education and immersion education seem to go
hand in hand as bilingual-immersion education, which can be structured in
all manner of ratios: 90/10, 80/20, 70/30, 60/40 and so on downwards.
What essentially happens is that a set period of time is allotted for
immersion, which means that during this set time teaching and learning
cannot take place in English, it can only take place within mother tongue
and in accordance with the epistemological philosophies of mother culture.
The purpose behind this is to more effectively enable the re-uptake or
uptake of mother tongue. Immersion under this way of thinking is premised
on the teaching and learning of mother tongue, whereas according to Hinton
“...the main thrust of bilingual education from its inception was the teaching
of classroom subjects in children’s native language, not the teaching of
language itself”.458
Unlike bilingual education, fuller immersion based education involves
‘intensive’ oral and written language instruction as well as instruction in
other areas of knowledge. Lower ratio bilingual-immersion programmes tend
to be exclusively premised on language learning, in a manner not too distant
from turning a language into a subject. These lower ratio programmes are
generally not considered meaningful immersion. In New South Wales only
the 100/4 hour per week model comes close to working beyond this. It is
within the higher ratios of bilingual-immersion that language learning and
learning in other curriculum areas is possible. High ratio bilingual
programmes are particularly important where mother tongue is first and
only tongue, because learners with only mother tongue thrust into English
only education can suffer significantly through premature immersion into
what is a foreign language and culture. Within Australia this point remains
highly under-accepted yet it is salient all the same.
457
458
ibid.
L Hinton, ‘Teaching methods’, op.cit., p. 180.
[118]
It has to be said though that a transition from a non-speech proficient
situation to a speech-proficient situation means that immersion is
necessarily a gradual process. I want to emphasise that the more exposure a
learner has to mother tongue, the more likely it is that learning of mother
tongue will move forward from the development of language memory into
language cognition and real language usage. Therefore, we can appreciate
that the more a mother tongue is used the more it is sustained, but I have to
say that can only happen if fluent teachers are available to guide this.
Immersion, when speech proficiency is reached, becomes a maintenance
programme. The major determining factor in all of this becomes time. Full
immersion remains the most effective means of ensuring that mother tongue
is brought back to full day-to-day life within mother culture.
Whilst we can appreciate that bilingual education may not have the same
intensive oral language instruction as bilingual immersion does, it will often
involve written language instruction. No matter what form of programme is
utilised, it is clear that education within our Indigenous mother tongues
necessarily involves language engineering as a key part of the education
process. This is because foundationally all Indigenous languages were
contained within communication and knowledge lexicons that were not of a
‘written’ form as it is known in the Western sense. Hinton pointed out that:
Teaching school subjects in the language necessitated language engineering:
many indigenous languages had no writing systems, so orthographies,
literature, and curriculum materials, as well as new vocabulary and genres of
writing such as essay and poetry, had to be developed. 459
The reason for this is the pervading dominance of the importance of the
Western ‘written’ medium, which we have embraced and indeed enveloped
into our otherwise already wide body of language mediums. Whilst the
‘written’ medium is less relevant to our foundational cultural praxis and
pedagogies, it has become essential to us in shaping education that works
with both our knowledge ways and Western knowledge ways.
As for bilingual education, Purdie reported that “...there appears to be a
consensus among those actively working in the area that bilingual education
can assist in providing a sense of identity to speakers of Indigenous
languages and their descendants”.460 I am somewhat bemused by ‘can
assist’ when I reflect upon what I have written thus far about the
importance of learning Indigenous languages and cultures, because for me
there is very little doubt that when we learn our languages and cultures our
cultural identity is productively and positively enhanced. For me the best
testimony to substantiate this will always come from our Indigenous
459
460
L Hinton, ‘Teaching methods’, ibid.
N Purdie, op.cit., p.3.
[119]
experience. In working through literature pertinent to the teaching and
learning of our Indigenous languages and cultures I am always drawn to
those unique papers that are penned by us. One such paper was published
last year by Yalmay Yunupingu, a bilingual teacher “Guŋitjpirr miyalk” with
an impressive 32 year history of community teaching experience.461
This experience speaks more loudly in my mind than any academic study
could ever do. In her article Yalmay Yunupingu tells us that she is a speaker
of multiple Yolŋu matha languages as well as being fluent in English.462
Yalmay describes the day to day routine of her bilingual teaching practice,
and how Yolŋu matha is embedded within this. Yalmay discusses how Yolŋu
matha is used as the first medium of literacy learning, especially with very
young learners, in order to develop knowledge and understanding of nonoral literacy concepts, and how after this they move forward with English as
second language learning. In discussing the teaching of maths Yalmay says
that “our language is a good language to use with the children because they
think in Yolŋu matha and they respond to us very quickly because they can
understand what I’m saying...as they get older they use more and more
English in their learning.463
What Yalmay has also said is that, “We have now been told we are not to use
our students’ first language, only English”.464 To say that I am appalled by
this probably doesn’t do justice to the intensity of my cultural anguish as an
Indigenous academic and educator. We are talking here about peoples who
are fortunate enough to still have mother tongues as first tongues. Yalmay
poignantly affirmed “I already know that the children won’t understand what
I’m saying, they will laugh at me, and they may even misbehave because
they’ll be bored and won’t know what the lessons are about”.465 Not only
does this demand to teach in English work directly against the rhetoric of
the ‘National Approach’, it strikes at the very heart of any claim to
educational reconciliation, and actively works against the protection of
Indigenous languages and cultures. Further, it actively obstructs closing the
gap by disenfranchising young Yolŋu children from education.
To me Yalmay’s article brings all the academic postulation about Indigenous
language and culture education into stark perspective. Yalmay says:
Our Vision Statement for Yambirrpa Schools has a clear bothways approach, where
two languages, Yolŋu matha and English, and two cultural views are in a careful
balance. If either one overpowers the other, the educational system will fail, and
cause our children to grow up unbalanced and unable to function well in the world.
461
462
463
464
465
Y Yunupingu, ‘Bilingual works’, Australian Educator, no.66, Winter 2010, pp. 24 - 25.
ibid, p. 24.
ibid., p.25.
ibid.
Ibid.
[120]
The decision to make English the only important language in our schools will only
make the situation for our young people worse as they struggle to be proud Yolŋu
in a world that is making them feel that their culture is bad, unimportant and
irrelevant in the contemporary world.466
Clearly bilingual education is all about achieving balance, about answering
our right to be educated within our own languages and cultures, whilst at
the same time ensuring that we also gain an education that does not
exclude Standard Australian English acquisition or the other benefits of
Western knowing.
Yalmay refutes the contention that bilingual education does not lead to the
development of adequate literacy skills, citing the example of her own six
daughters all of whom can read and write in two languages and have
graduated successfully.467 When I think about this I am reminded of the
Hon. Shayne Neumann’s observation that “the benefits of being able to
speak multiple languages are tangible, particularly in Europe”.468 As
Neumann was at pains to point out this should be the same for us, yet it
seems to me that bilingualism is valued within mainstream society more if it
involves Western languages than if it involves our own languages. That we
would read into this a discriminatory double standard should not be
surprising. One of the key issues behind the controversy surrounding
bilingual education, however, has always been the matter of attendance.
In a recent study undertaken by Greg Dickson, a doctoral student in the
field of linguistics, the question of Indigenous school attendance was
revisited because it had been cited as a justification for dismantling
bilingual programming in the Northern Territory.469 Dickson hypothesised
that “if the Departmental claims of 2008 about the negative effects of
bilingual education on enrolment and attendance are correct, then we would
expect to see an increase in attendance in the former bilingual schools for
the years following its abolition”.470 In testing this hypothesis Dickson found
that in two of the three Warlpiri bilingual schools he focused on, attendance
rates decreased after 2008, in one case significantly so. Whilst it was
pointed out that it cannot be assumed that the withdrawal of bilingual
programming was wholly responsible for these declines, it can be seen that
the withdrawal of bilingual programming has not lead to improved
attendance.471
ibid.
ibid.
468 ‘Inquiry to focus on language’ op. cit.
469 G Dickson, ‘No Warlpiri, no school: A preliminary look at attendance in Warlpiri schools since
introducing the first four hours of English policy’, Ngoonjook: A Journal of Australian Indigenous
Issues, vol.35, 2010, pp.97 -113.
470 ibid., p.100.
471 ibid., pp.110-111.
466
467
[121]
Dickson’s study, although small, nonetheless brings into focus how easily
bi-cultural education paradigms such as bilingual education can be
unbalanced, or even abolished, on the basis of Western determinations that
tip the delicate balance of education over in favour of Western educational
goals and outcomes. This is one of the greatest draw backs to bilingual
programming because it is premised on equality of cultural time in the
education day, yet in practice if things go awry with attendance and the like
Indigenous cultural time is the first to be compromised. Even so Purdie et
al. claim that “a growing body of research evidence shows that well-designed
bilingual programmes are academically effective and do not hold back
students’ acquisition of English”,472 which from a Western standpoint,
seems the most important measure of success for bilingual education.
One thing that did catch my attention in reading about bilingual education
was the substance of Indigenous critique from within Australia. Indigenous
Professor’s Paul Hughes and Martin Nakata were both cited by Purdie et al.
as finding difficulty with bilingual education.473 Hughes because he felt that
there were not enough skilled fluent teachers in both English and
Indigenous language nor an appropriate degree of Indigenous language
resource material, Nakata because he felt that “...there is no evidence that
students have better English skills as a result of bilingual schooling”.474 It is
hard to draw definitive conclusions about this, given the differing analyses
within available literature, but Purdie et al. did cite the 2000 Katu Kalpa
study into bilingual education as finding examples from Warlpiri bilingual
schools of increased Indigenous outcomes in literacy and numeracy.
Dickson, however, found that these same schools were not fairing as well,
but his analysis focuses on the period after bilingual education was stopped.
I wonder whether or not the political decision to disrupt bilingual education
has had a negative psychological effect on the broader community in terms
of the value of school and the schooling system. Sámi experience of bilingual
and immersion education is relevant here because of the legal protective
power behind the 097S Curriculum, which is essentially a distinct
autonomous Sámi curriculum founded within Sámi language and culture,
but with “...equal status with the national curriculum”.475 What makes this
curriculum unique, and completely different to the Australian experience, is
that it is centred within Norwegian law on the basis of the national
constitution, “the Sámi Act” of 1987, the Norwegian Education Act’s of 1990
472
473
474
475
N Purdie et al., op.cit., p.19.
ibid., p.33.
ibid.
V Hirvonen, op.cit.,p.21.
[122]
and 1998, and the International Labor Office’s (ILO) Convention no. 169.476
Together these instruments create a strong legal footing for the Sámi
curriculum which underpins Sámi bilingual and immersion education.
In respect to bilingual education Hirvonen noted that a significant goal of
the 097S curriculum is “...that as many students as possible should become
bilingual at least in Sámi and Norwegian”,477 no doubt because of the dual
status that Sámi has as a national language and culture. Bilingual
programming is thus relevant not just to the Indigenous population, but to
the Norwegian population overall. Even so, when education programming
values Sámi as a medium for all modes of teaching not just language
teaching, as in a full immersion programme, Sámi remains strong, but in
“Sámi-Norwegian-speaking schools” where it appears that teaching takes
place in both mediums, as in a bilingual education programme, Hirvonen
suggested that it only takes “...a single Norwegian-speaking student in a
class [to]...turn all teaching into Norwegian” even when the majority in the
class are Sámi speaking.478
I gain from this a real sense that the Sámi bilingual learning environment,
even though it is politically set up to be a conduit for equal Indigenousmedium and non-Indigenous medium teaching space, tends to be
dominated by non-Indigenous medium teaching. This convinces me that
bilingual programming, whilst laudable on paper, is nonetheless fragile in
practice. If the set bilingual-immersion structure is unbalanced we may not
be able to claim that the principles of bilingualism are working. It seems
that bilingual-immersion programmes with Indigenous to non-Indigenous
education ratios of less 80/20 in favour of Indigenous learning, as in the
New Zealand example, tend to be particularly vulnerable to a collapse of
bilingualism. That is perhaps why many of us look upon full Indigenous
specific immersion programmes more favourably. Hirvonen certainly posited
that “it is obvious that mixed groups lead to teaching through Norwegian
rather than Sámi...”.479
Hirvonen further noted that a split can happen wherein learning begins to
occur in Norwegian even when Sámi remains the day-to-day language of
student conversation. All of this is convoluted further by the teachers
themselves. As you might expect if a teacher is not fully bilingual in both
languages represented in a bilingual learning situation issues inevitably
arise with regard to the balance of bilingual representation because
476
477
478
479
ibid.
ibid., p.29.
ibid., p.31.
ibid.
[123]
obviously the teacher will teach in the language medium with which they are
most familiar. What I gained from Hirvonen’s consideration of bilingual
education is that teaching the language of Sámi as a discrete subject is not
enough; all parts of the curriculum have to be delivered in Sámi. How the
school balances Sámi with Norwegian has a direct informing impact on how
well mother tongue is maintained. Once Norwegian is introduced as the
main medium of learning instruction Norwegian language dominance
becomes possible.
It seems to me that for education to really impact in terms of our right to
maintain our languages and cultures bilingual education has to be modelled
very carefully, and I would suggest so that English remains the second or
foreign language, not the other way around. This leads me then to consider
the practicalities of immersion programming, which to my mind stand as
‘best practice’ if the goal behind education is to specifically promote
Indigenous language and culture survival and revival. Hinton, in reflecting
upon immersion in school settings poignantly observed:
Many attempts at teaching endangered languages have had disappointing
results because of poorly developed methodology. The programs involve overly
repetitive review of a small range of vocabulary or spend too much time
“explaining” the language in English rather than actually using the language, or
depend too much on writing things down rather than aural learning, or never
get to point of teaching people how to talk in complete sentences or how to
communicate about real things.480
In thinking about Hinton’s words I am given cause to wonder how many of
the 46 Aboriginal language programmes currently in operation in New South
Wales look as Hinton described. There is a real difficulty here because if
language learning is premised on word lexicons that best fit within the
category ‘language awareness’ then this form of education may be all that is
possible, certainly conversational language is not reachable. In this case
language inexorably becomes an ‘object’ of ‘subject’. Where conversation
may be reachable however, immersion steps out as an ideal education
platform. It is so because as Hinton affirmed immersion based learning
provides “...sufficient exposure to the language to produce fluent speakers”
within “...a venue for using the language in real communication”.481 Hinton
stressed that “in immersion schools, the presence of the target language is
so strong that children tend to use it with each other outside the classroom
as well as in”.482
McCarty has confirmed the value of immersion programming by noting that
“language immersion, which provides all or most of children's instruction in
480
481
482
L Hinton, ‘Teaching methods’, op.cit., p.181.
ibid., p.182.
ibid.
[124]
the target or heritage language, is increasingly the pedagogy of choice among
Indigenous communities seeking to produce a new generation of fluent
Native language speakers”.483. Huss has also confirmed that there is
evidence from the Sámi experience that suggests that for revitalisation to be
successful in causing a language shift from dominator tongue back to
mother tongue, language revitalisation must be wholly situated within an
Indigenous cultural realm.484 In referring to the effect of educational
strategies in revitalising use of Sámi languages Huss highlighted that “the
only real strong model...appears to be Sámi-medium education in a Sámidominant school, where the personnel as well as the pupils have native or
otherwise high competence in the language, and where the atmosphere
distinctly favours Sámi culture”.485
This form of education, where learning is exclusively undertaken within an
Indigenous medium, has been successfully introduced within New Zealand
and Hawaii. Both the Maori and Hawaiian experiences are to this day held
up within international literature as leading the full immersion movement.
In New Zealand this movement began with the introduction of the Te
Kōhanga Reo programme, which began essentially as a language ‘nest’
initiative, the ‘nest’ being a community based structure that brings the very
young into direct contact with the very old, in this case the young to hear
and learn Māori, the old to teach Māori. McMurchy-Pilkington explained
that “in Te Kohanga Reo, babies and young children, along with some of
their parents, learned Maori through language immersion from elders and
those fluent in Maori. Te Kohanga Reo blossomed around the country to well
over 500 centres in six years”.486
Because of a concern over lack of continuity with Māori immersion learning
the primary level Kura Kaupapa Māori programme was instigated487, but I
note from May and Hill that a wharekura secondary level programme was
also put in place.488 As I noted earlier on May and Hill made it clear in their
evaluation of Māori-medium education that there is insufficient evidence
regarding the effectiveness of this form of education, however McCarty in her
own analysis stated that “there is ample evidence across a wide
international literature that mother-tongue maintenance programs produce
the most significant and lasting academic benefits for language-minority
students”.489 As for the Hawaiian experience it similarly began out of
483TL
484
485
486
487
488
489
McCarty, ‘Revitalising Indigenous languages...’, op.cit., pp.148–149.
L Huss, op.cit., p.127.
ibid.
C McMurchy-Pilkington, op.cit., p.619.
ibid.
S May & R Hill, op.cit.
TL McCarty, ‘Schools as strategic tools...’, op.cit., p167.
[125]
community language Pūnana Leo nests which were “...total immersion
preschools for children between the ages of two and five years old”.490As is
the case with New Zealand these early preschool programmes led in time to
the development of K-12 immersion programmes.
In both the case of New Zealand and the case of Hawaii establishing full
Indigenous immersion education programmes has not been without
difficulty, with problems ranging from the need for language engineering,
teacher language and culture competencies, inadequate teaching resources
through to levels of funding, and of course the all important State based
approval. It is worth noting that in Hawaii there is a protracted history of
control by the State with regard to immersion programming, which has been
tightly administered via State legislation.491 Notwithstanding this McCarty
concluded in her analysis that despite whatever hurdles have had to be
overcome these immersion programmes stand as “...victories of the
fundamental right of choice...” that is “...Indigenous self-determinant choice
about the content and medium of children’s education”.492
All in all it is the case that the implementation of immersion, as a best
practice educational paradigm for the revival of Indigenous languages and
cultures, will depend upon how State mainstream education systems
negotiate. There are a series of questions that must be addressed here:1. Are we Indigenous peoples going to be afforded immersion time and space or are we
only going to be allowed time and space as ‘subject’ within the curricula?
2. If we are afforded immersion time, how much time will we get?,
3. Will we be able to have Indigenous specific immersion time and space?
4. Will that immersion time and space be quarantined so that this time and space is
owned by mother tongue and mother culture?
5. Will the learning that takes place within immersion time and space be subject to
Western measurements of success or Indigenous measurements of success?
I am sure that there are many more such questions that would drive
negotiation of this sort; I pose the ones above as merely illustrative of the
types of issues that need to be addressed. These questions though do need
to be framed under the ultimate question – are we educating for the
protection and advancement of Indigenous languages and cultures, or are
we merely seeking a ‘best practice’ way for ensuring Indigenous immersion
in English language and Western culture?
In thinking about this at a practical level, and knowing that such
negotiations are fundamentally difficult on both sides of the equation, one
suggestion that did impress me came from the Victorian Curriculum and
SL No’Eau Warner, ‘The movement to revitalise Hawaiian language and culture’ in L Hinton & K
Hale (eds), Green Book of Language Revitalisation in Practice, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 2001
p.136.
491 ibid.
492 TL McCarty, ‘Schools as strategic tools...’,op.cit., p.174.
490
[126]
Assessment Authority [VCAA], who considered a three stage staggered
approach on the basis of their understanding of the juxtaposition between
our concern over the public teaching of our languages, and the possible
shame that may be caused to our children through this, and our recognition
of the reconciliation benefits of public instruction in our languages and
cultures. The three stages entail i. teaching our Indigenous languages and
cultures to our Indigenous children exclusively, ii. after a period of
Indigenous exclusive learning opening language learning up to other
children, then iii. widening the language and culture programme into a
broader community initiative which welcomes parents and community
members into the learning environment.493
The benefits of the Victorian model cannot be overstated here because this
model allows for an immersion style programme for Indigenous learners as a
kick start to their language and culture learning, which is especially
important when it is highly probable that mother tongue is not known at
home or particularly well within the community. The learning then opens up
so that the children go into a ‘mixed’ learning context with greater levels of
linguistic and cultural fluency and confidence. Ultimately it becomes a wider
community education ‘nest’ which has enormous benefits for bringing
Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities together in the spirit of
reconciliation. It could, without doubt, be argued that this falls well short of
the ideals of an immersion programme, but it may be that this is a workable
compromise, though the time and space given to the continuing mixed
programme would need to be significant and immersion based to be
effective.
In terms of ‘best practice’ not only can it be seen that ‘teaching and learning
on country’ is a clear leader, we can see that full immersion and bilingualimmersion education programmes have a place within the ‘best practice’
concept. That duly noted if we are going to instigate best practice effectively
we have to follow one other ‘best practice’ paradigm and that is ‘longitudinal
learning’, as was recognised in both the Māori and Hawaiian context.
Preschool is particularly important here because as Bougie noted “there is
evidence that the preschool years are a time when language skills are
emerging”.494 We have to keep in mind though that it is perfectly possible to
have a strong successful pre-school programme in place which achieves
results in the uptake of mother tongue, only to have these results come
asunder because of a lack of continuity once children move on to primary
level learning.
493
494
VCAA, op.cit., p.12.
E Bougie, op.cit., p.74.
[127]
Of course linking up early childhood education with primary and secondary
education must also annex with adult and community education, which I
discuss at length in the next chapter. This is often done through the
language nest context, but it can also be done through what is known as the
‘master-apprentice’ model, which is often cited as a ‘best practice’ model for
teaching and learning Indigenous languages and cultures, particularly in a
revitalisation context where older fluent speakers are still present. Hinton
explained that the programme itself “...was developed in 1992 by the Native
California Network...” and that Hinton herself was one of its principal
designers.495 The programme is a specific intensive formal education
initiative, run on immersion principles and specifically aimed at bringing
existing speakers together with younger non-speakers so that they might
“...develop conversational proficiency...”.496
There are significant ‘rules’ to the programme which include “no English
allowed”, “learning is always oral, not written” and “learning takes place
primarily in real-life situations”.497 The purpose behind this is to create a
more culturally meaningful context for language transmission to take place.
Hinton said of the programme that it is “...simple conceptually, but it is
difficult to carry out practically...”, one of the reasons being that it can take
a great deal of time, running over several years, and based on individual
sessions of a number of hours each week.498 The overarching idea of
establishing language apprentice’s does sound appealing, and I can see that
in a revitalisation context where there are full speech fluent ‘masters’ willing
to undertake the challenge of such a programme that it could work. Hinton
does stress though that it can be demanding.499
Walsh has indicated that in his opinion “the Master-Apprentice Program is
readily applicable to the situation in New South Wales”.500 I am, however,
inclined to disagree somewhat with this claim on the basis that it is so
demanding and that it impresses me as the sort of programme that works
best when the ‘master’ is indeed fully fluent, and in an Indigenous context
that would mean being more than speech proficient. I say this because of
the spiritual presence of words that would need to be conveyed alongside the
words themselves. That said, in situations where language is complete
enough to genuinely bring about re-uptake of mother tongue a masterapprentice style may well appeal, certainly it would work towards the
L Hinton, ‘The Master-Apprentice language learning program’ in L Hinton & K Hale (eds), The
Green Book of Language Revitalisation in Practice, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 2001, p.218.
496 ibid., p.217.
497 ibid., p.218.
498 ibid., p.225.
499 ibid.
500 M Walsh, ‘Teaching NSW’s Indigenous languages...’, op.cit., p.12.
495
[128]
programmes goal of creating “young professional-age adults in the language
so that they can go on to teach it themselves”.501
As I’ve intimated throughout the text of Chapters 3 and 4 there are a myriad
of problems which do constitute impediments to any mode of formal
Indigenous language and culture education. One of the biggest issues is –
who is going to do the teaching? The ideal, of course, is to have a fully
qualified teaching professional who is completely fluent in the language and
culture that is being taught, but the reality of the Indigenous context is that
this ideal is rarely realisable. Even when there are strong culturally fluent
Elders available to oversee teaching, the fluency level of an individual
teacher still impacts significantly. When a fully fluent teacher can’t be
brought into the teaching-learning interchange immersion programming is
all but impossible and bilingual programming, as we have found through the
Sámi experience, swings radically out of balance.
So, what happens when a teacher is not fluent? What can we expect out of
the teaching-learning interchange? Hinton tells us that “it is common when
the teacher is not fluent to fall back on teaching vocabulary items alone, so
that students learn to name things but not to put those names into
sentences”.502 We can derive from this a real sense of the powerful effect a
teacher can have in stagnating a language programme with the potential to
revive a language at language awareness. This can happen too when
continuity of trained fluent teaching is disrupted. Dr Rob Amery. gave an
excellent example of this from the South Australian experience:
...the recent relocation of just two teachers from Adelaide to Anangu schools on
the Pitjantjatjara-Yankunytjatjara (P-Y) lands shows the extreme fragility and
vulnerability of these programs. The loss of these two persons has resulted in
the cessation of the Pitjantjatjara program at Alberton Primary, Adelaide High
and several other schools.503
When the teaching is done on a voluntary basis in particular issues
consistently arise around the matter of teaching continuity. One way of
avoiding this is to instigate a formalised payment structure. The New South
Wales Department of Education and Training has a formalised payment
structure for the casual employment of Aboriginal language tutors to work
in Aboriginal language education programmes.504 These tutors are employed
to “...teach and engage...” Aboriginal students “...learning an Aboriginal
language”.505 Where things can become difficult to say the least is whether
L Hinton, ‘The Master-Apprentice...’, loc.cit.
L Hinton, ‘Teaching methods’, op.cit., p.188.
503 R Amery, Indigenous Language Programs in South Australian Schools: Issues, Dilemmas and
Solutions, project commissioned by the Board of Studies New South Wales, 2002,<http://abed.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/go/resources/languages>, p.2.
504 New South Wales Department of Education and Training, op.cit.,p.8.
505 ibid., p.2.
501
502
[129]
or not these Aboriginal tutors are being paid correctly, given that they are
likely to take key teaching roles. There may also be issues related to
accepted community knowledge holders being engaged at a mere ‘tutor’ role,
which can happen.
Another impediment that often goes under discussed in my view has to do
with the veracity of the language being taught. In language revitalisation
and reclamation programmes this is very much an issue. Hinton pointed out
that teaching a revitalised endangered language is quite unique because the
students being taught are literally going to become the languages only
speakers.506 Herein lays the difficulty because “...any kind of error in
grammar, pronunciation, communicative practices, and so on will actually
become part of that language in the future”.507 Indigenous peoples are very
aware of this, and it is often the case that anxiety over this leads to serious
community unrest and dispute. In my own experience as a community
person I can say that there is much discussion within families and
communities around ‘gammin’ words; that is words that have been contrived
when existing words are known.
The burden of this is heavy not just on communities, but also on State
mainstream education programmers, curriculum developers and teachers
themselves. Hinton has made it known that “there is...a more solemn
responsibility for the teachers to teach, and the learners to learn, the
language as completely, as competently, and as correctly as is humanly
possible”.508 Hinton has made this point because she feels that “...it is
important not to be complacent about what is being taught”.509 Amery in
discussing Indigenous language revitalisation pointed out the value of the
role of linguists, noting that:
Linguists can assist greatly in developing workable practical orthographies, in
documenting languages, in making historical sources accessible, in assisting in
the preparation of resources and materials, in developing and modernising the
language...and crucially in imparting their skills to local Indigenous peoples and
teachers through facilitating workshops and on-the-job training.510
This doesn’t necessarily mean that linguists can always solve issues to do
with the veracity of a language that is being reclaimed or revitalised because
there are times when the work of linguists causes consternation for
Indigenous peoples. Walsh noted as much in his observation that:
Apart from training in language teaching some Aboriginal people have queried
the need for expertise in linguistics. People have referred to past occasions
506
507
508
509
510
L Hinton, ‘Teaching methods’, op.cit., p.189.
ibid.
ibid.
ibid.
R Amery, op.cit., p.9.
[130]
when, in their view, they have been ripped off by linguists: their people have
freely given up their knowledge and been given nothing in return. 511
The reference to ‘ripped off’ here has much to do with the feeling that our
languages and cultures come under academic scrutiny and are used by
academics to further personal careers and the expense of our Indigenous
interests. When this happens a situation of suspicion is created so that
when other well meaning linguists try to become involved in language
revitalisation and reclamation, and indeed the formulation of material for
teaching, they are met with community opposition.
Amery stressed that “finding optimum ways of supporting programs can be
a delicate and sensitive matter”. He is certainly right. In fact the example he
used to illustrate this was as telling as Walsh’s was:
We have often heard the comment made in South Australia that “no whitefella is
going to tell me how my language should be” and people might take great
offence at any attempt by linguists or others to “correct” grammar or language
forms. It is often preferable to discuss similar examples from other language
situations rather than attack issues head-on.512
In discussing community disquiet of this nature Walsh made the suggestion
that “it would be useful to devise some kind of strategy to assist such people
with intra-community criticism as it arises in language revitalisation efforts
in New South Wales - as is sure to happen”.513 This suggestion ties directly
in with my own comments in Chapter 3, about finding proper community
mediation mechanisms to enable resolution of such issues, which as I’ve
already emphasised can easily escalate.
Dealing with the issue of who teaches is one thing, dealing with the veracity
of teaching content is another, but all of this comes to naught if there are
not adequate teaching resources to facilitate the teaching-learning
interchange. Outside the most obvious resource ‘country’ there is a need for
in-class culturally sound instructional materials in all educational modes
from immersion and bilingualism through to the standard Western
paradigm. Lowe and Ash noted “the dearth of linguistic resources for most of
the languages of NSW severely affects attempts by schools to support a
language course”.514 This observation was made in 2006, and whilst strong
community organisations like Muurrbay are heavily involved in producing
resources to answer this void, the literature on Indigenous language and
culture teaching nonetheless continues to highlight that this remains an
issue across the board.
511
512
513
514
M Walsh, ‘Raising Babel...’, op.cit., p.116.
R Amery, op.cit., p.12.
M Walsh, ‘Teaching NSW’s Indigenous languages...’, op.cit., p.9.
K Lowe & A Ash, op.cit., p.12
[131]
A further extremely complex issue regarding the teaching and learning of
Indigenous languages and cultures is another dilemma centred on the
polemic of on country versus off country. Walsh noted that for Indigenous
peoples such as myself, who have multiple cultural affiliations, or for those
of us living off country matters are complex.515 He suggested that “for such
Aboriginal people the question is which language should they learn: the
language of the territory in which they now reside or the language(s) which
they regard as their own”.516 Walsh further stated that:
Aboriginal opinion is sharply divided on this issue. Some insist that it is simply
wrong to teach an Aboriginal language outside its territory: it contravenes
traditional law. Others think that any Aboriginal language is better than none –
even if its territory is in a distant part of Australia. Still others believe that only
a NSW language should be used within NSW for teaching and learning. 517
It is no wonder that our opinion is divided. On the one hand we have within
us a strong spiritual commitment to honour language as country. On the
other hand we face the dilemma of knowing that only a few of our cultural
nationhood’s are likely to be able to revitalise language to a degree of
proficiency that would enable the development of language sufficiently to
enable re-acquisition of language for re-uptake as part of everyday speech.
Lowe and Ash looked at the issue of teaching language off-country, posing
the question: “it is possible for an off-country but well documented language
to be introduced and taught while linguistic research is undertaken to
support the re-establishment of the local on-country language”.518 This
remains a very important question for us to address, especially here in New
South Wales. The law/lore polemics between on country versus off country
are profound and not easily addressed, but that does not mean that we
should not attempt to tackle this issue. What I found interesting in Lowe
and Ash’s article was their reference to the Yolŋu language programme that
ran off-county at the Worawa Aboriginal Independent College in Victoria.
Low and Ash quote Aboriginal Yorta Yorta teacher Aretha Brigg’s who said,:
The teaching of the non-local Indigenous language that is spoken fluently on a
daily basis, introduces students to Australian Indigenous language rules and
concepts that exist right throughout Australia. Students who have never spoken
or heard an Indigenous language spoken become familiar with these rules and
concepts and are able to practise using them in their local target language.519
Despite the genuine difficultly of locating appropriate teachers, establishing
language veracity, manufacturing appropriate teaching resources and the
very complex matter of on country versus off country education we cannot
afford to become complacent by not tackling head on these issues. We also
515
516
517
518
519
M Walsh, ‘Raising babel...’, op.cit., pp.114-115.
ibid., p.114.
ibid., p.115.
K Lowe & A Ash, op.cit, p.13.
A Briggs as cited in K Lowe & A Ash, ibid.
[132]
need to look at sustainable funding, the other key issue in all of this. If
funding arrangements are short term and based on short term outcomes
immersion programmes will not be able to get sufficiently off the ground and
they will be designated a failure, even though a lack of supportive funding
contributed to their demise. At the end of the day best practice in the
teaching and learning of Indigenous languages and cultures rests on how
serious we really are about teaching language and culture for its own sake,
because if we are we need to realise the importance of this to community
cultural health and wellbeing and we have to realise that education is a
holistic whole of community matter.
[133]
““What are you going to do with the mother tongue before school, in school, out of school, and after
school?” Because that determines its fate, whether it is going to become self-renewing”.
Professor Joshua A Fishman
Chapter 5 – Cultural Health and Wellbeing
5.1 Language, Culture and Community
Often when we think about health and wellbeing we immediately bring to
mind the state of our physical being, and then often in the second instance
the state of our psychological being. Outside of our Indigenous world,
however, you tend not to hear too often reference to health and wellbeing as
spiritually founded. In Chapter 1 I quoted Kipuri who I pointed out had
reiterated the words of Dr Shawn Wilson to express what spirituality is for
us. Kipuri pointed to a very meaningful passage authored by Wilson in
which Wilson observed:
For many indigenous people, having a healthy sense of spirituality is just as
important as other aspects of mental, emotional and physical health. It is
important to realize that a healthy spirit is essential for indigenous people to live
a healthy life. Mainstream society is beginning to realize that spirituality is an
element that must be taken into serious consideration when dealing with
indigenous communities.520
In fact Wilson, in reflecting upon the backdrop behind Indigenous crime,
was explicit in articulating that “spirituality is important in education as a
means of rebuilding people’s connections to their environment. It is the
spiritual death of many Indigenous people that has lead them to be
imprisoned in the first place”.521
Spiritual health and wellbeing underpins cultural health and wellbeing,
which in turn impacts directly Indigenous community health and wellbeing.
It is interesting though that in the vastness of data reporting upon the dire
state of our health, which has been energetically scrutinised by most
spheres of academia for many years now, that health professionals still tend
to be somewhat aloof to this. Indeed Dr Nerelle Poroch together with Kerry
Arabena, Julie Tongs, Steve Larkin, Jodie Fisher and Graham Henderson
importantly noted in the very first line of their introduction to their study
‘Spirituality and Aboriginal People’s Social and Emotional Wellbeing’ that:
S Wilson as cited in United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, State of the
World’s Indigenous Peoples, op.cit., p.61 &
S Wilson, Recognising the Importance of Spirituality in Indigenous Learning, paper presented at the
Creating New Learning conference, Australian Corrections Education Association Inc, 1999,
<http://www.acea.org.au/Content/1999%20papers/Shaun%20Wilson%20-%20paper.pdf>
521 S Wilson, Recognising the Importance..., ibid.
520
[134]
Aboriginal spirituality and social and emotional wellbeing is a relatively
undeveloped area of research in Australia. There is much written about
Aboriginal physical health but there is a paucity of evidence about the
relationship between spirituality and social and emotional wellbeing outcomes
within Aboriginal communities.522
Perhaps this is because our spiritual health is something that is
challengingly intangible for much of Western science; it can’t be physically
‘operated’ upon or ‘medicated’ with the chemical therapies of Western
medical science, and it can’t be scientifically experimented upon in the
Western sense to find a cure.
Actually there is a passage in Poroch et al. that I have quoted before now
when teaching about Indigenous spiritual health. It reads:
The Anangu people of Central Australia call their healers ngangkari. Ngangkari
are from the deep past and are equal with doctors in their effectiveness for
Anangu. Writing about ngangkari, Elsie Wanatjura, from the Ngaanyatjarra
Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women’s Council Aboriginal Corporation
(NPYWCAC 2003:14), says that:
Doctors and nurses might wonder why do Anangu keep asking for ngangkari help
when they can access good health clinics these days and they can easily get a
quick needle or a tablet? It is because ngangkari get straight to the problem and
give immediate healing. Tablets can’t heal the spirit. Ngangkari can. Ngangkari
can see right into the spirit and the mind. Ngangkari see right inside the kurunpa—the spirit—and get straight to the heart of the matter. What is kurun-pa?
There is kurun-pa inside you and inside me. It lives inside our bodies giving us
523
life..
This explanation provided by Elsie Wanatjura is extraordinarily illustrative
of the primacy of spirituality literally within us. Now it is not my intention to
go into a protracted discussion about the differences between general health
and wellbeing and spiritual health and wellbeing other than to say that
what is inside us ‘giving us life’ is so deep and profound that it needs to be
positively nurtured, and it demands as much attention as physical health.
In the very recent final report of House of Representative Standing
Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs investigation into
Indigenous youth crime one claim that was made really stood out for me:
Children who have access to a good quality education and who are supported
and directed by their parents to attend school are likely to develop the necessary
knowledge, skills and social norms for a productive and rewarding adult life.524
I am certain that I have already covered the matter of ‘good quality
education’ in Chapter 4, which clearly for Indigenous children means
cultural quality in both curricula and pedagogy. The second matter, though,
N Poroch,K Arabena, J Tongs, S Larkin, J Fisher & G Henderson, Spirituality and Aboriginal
People's Social and Emotional Wellbeing: A Review, Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health
Discussion Paper Series: No. 11, CRCAH, Casuarina, NT, 2009,p.3.
522
523 ibid., p.8.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs,
Doing Time – Time for Doing: Indigenous Youth in the Criminal Justice System, Commonwealth of
Australia, Canberra, June 2011, p.17.
524
[135]
which is our position as parents, is confronting because there is a serious
challenge in this one sentence that behoves us to step up as parents and
community members to support and nourish our children’s development,
and that means that we must work to find ways to support and nurture our
spiritual health. We must pay our spirit attention so that we are culturally
healthy within ourselves, and so that we can give more meaningfully of our
cultural self to our children.
Being culturally healthy for us is directly proportionate with the spiritual
integrity of our cultural identity. In turn the spiritual integrity of our
cultural identity is categorically dependent upon the vitality of our
connectivity to our ontology’s through our values, our philosophies and our
psychological praxis of being as one with country. It is at this point that I
come full circle in storying our Indigenous ways of knowing language and
culture because the extent to which we are embedded within these ways of
knowing has a determining influence on our cultural health and wellbeing.
Although many of us, particularly here in New South Wales, have been
forcibly disconnected from mother tongue and the praxis of mother culture
our profound relationship with mother tongue and mother culture together
with our profound sense of responsibility for mother tongue and mother
culture, as I first discussed in Chapter 2, has not been disconnected, but it
has been damaged. Realising cultural health and wellbeing is about seeking
to repair this damage.
So, how do we repair spiritual damage so that we have strong cultural
health and wellbeing? The answer is both easy and complex. It is easy
because all we have to do is become re-immersed within mother culture and
mother tongue so that we are thinking once again and communicating once
again through the power of our languages; all of them. This then is where
matters become highly complex. For a start, as you will have read in
Chapter 3, even bringing speech language alone back to a state where reacquisition and re-uptake is possible for many of us seems almost
impossible, so the other deeper spiritual vocabularies we once all had seem
painfully gone. In this alone the spiritual grief is weighty. Does this then
mean that for those of us who have suffered this loss that it is all
insurmountable, that we will never fully realise strong cultural health and
wellbeing?
Through all that I have written I have tried to give the sense that yes we can
indeed regain our cultural health and wellbeing, but we do need to find the
ways and means to strengthen what we have, to expand what we have, and
indeed to stop further loss of what we have. Maintaining or reviving mother
tongue is all important in this. Even though we know that language is but
one aspect of a wider body of culture, we know that it is so important to our
[136]
cultural health because the spirit of language is spirit that we need to have
stay strong within ourselves. We are talking here about our Indigenous
psyche. One single word, one expression from mother tongue, has the
unique capacity to give us a deep feeling of psychological resistance to the
imposition of dominator culture and society. That was why my mother was
so strong about holding onto our words; it gave her this sense of resistance.
As she often said whenever she heard just one word in ‘lingo’ - “you see, we
still speak our language”; “we still know our language”; “your language and
tribe goes together, you can’t separate them”.
This resistance of ours, to try and keep or otherwise regain our cultural
health and wellbeing has an astoundingly long and truly remarkable history
both internationally and nationally. In Australia perhaps one of the most
public affirmations of this resistance in more contemporary times came in
the form of the Barunga Statement which was delivered in 1988 to the
Australian Prime Minister of the day by Indigenous leaders Mr Galarrwuy
Yunupingu and Mr Wenton Rubuntja. In this statement a number of claims
were made, but one always stands out, the assertion of our right “to respect
for promotion of our Aboriginal identity, including the cultural, linguistic,
religious and historical aspects, including the right to be educated in our
own languages, and in our own culture and history”.525 The sheer
persistence of us on these matters, over many generations, even in the face
of catastrophic loss is surely testimony enough to prove the direct
correlation between our languages and cultures and our health and
wellbeing.
In looking to the literature to substantiate this correlation for the purposes
of this research study I came across an article which I can only say both
disturbed me, and highlighted for me the urgency of working toward the reacquisition and re-uptake of mother tongue. In a Canadian [British
Columbia] research study conducted by Dr Darcy Hallet, Dr Michael J.
Chandler and Associate Professor Christopher E. Lalonde the matter of
Indigenous youth suicide was examined.526 Essentially Hallet, Chandler and
Lalonde tested the hypothesis that the use of mother tongue at a
conversational level is a factor that influences trends in Indigenous youth
suicide. As a result of their study these authors reached the conclusion that:
...at least in the case of BC, those bands in which a majority of members
reported a conversational knowledge of an Aboriginal language also experienced
low to absent youth suicide rates. By contrast, those bands in which less than
The Barunga Statement as cited in B Attwood & A Markus, The Struggle for Aboriginal Rights, Allen
& Unwin, NSW, 1999, pp.316 – 317.
526 D Hallet, MJ Chandler & CE Lalonde, op.cit.
525
[137]
half of the members reported conversational knowledge suicide rates were six
times greater.527
As an Indigenous community member, who has witnessed the devastation
that suicide can cause, I was to say the least affected by this finding. Hallet,
Chandler and Lalonde closed their report on their study with the deeply
significant comment that “altogether these results demonstrate that
indigenous language use, as a marker of cultural persistence, is a strong
predictor of health and wellbeing in Canada’s Aboriginal communities”.528
For me this is a strong conclusive statement based on startling data that
found that in respect to the communities they investigated:
...those with lower language knowledge had more than six times the number of
suicides (96.59 per 100,000). These differential rates reflect the fact that,
between 1987 and 1992, only one youth committed suicide from within those 16
bands that had the language factor while, from the remaining 136 bands, 84
youth committed suicide during this same 6-year period.529
What can be said to something like this, except one suicide is one suicide
too many. To think that mother tongue and mother culture have a key role
in reversing this brings all the political postulations about rights, and all the
need for Western scholastic justifications into stark perspective. We are not
just talking about an academic right here; we are talking about the sanctity
of life itself. For me what makes this all the more confronting is the pressure
Bishop et al. reported that is placed upon our youth because of the urgency
to stem further linguistic and cultural loss. Bishop et al. noted that:
For Aboriginal people the experience of many years of trauma has forced the
community to quickly educate and pass on the necessary knowledge to its
young people in order to ensure that community remains alive. Of course,
one of the consequences of this has been the considerable burden it has
placed on its young people, who would normally spend a lifetime learning
these aspects of their culture. In many cases this has resulted in burnout
for those young people carrying such knowledge, resulting, in extreme
cases, in suicide.530
It is abundantly clear that our cultural health and wellbeing rests on the
linkages we have and maintain with mother tongue and mother culture, and
it is abundantly clear that when these linkages are threatened our anguish
over loss causes an intensification of the holistic lifelong learning process
which then cycles round and causes serious ill-health. On this basis alone I
say to myself - do we really need further evidence to demonstrate that there
is a direct causal link between healthy mother tongue and mother culture
and healthy community? If our children are dying through lack of culture or
too much culture all at once, we surely must see that something is
dreadfully wrong. Nation States such as Australia are not free of
527
528
529
530
ibid., p.398.
ibid.
ibid., p.396.
Bishop et al. op.cit., p.6.
[138]
responsibility in this, especially if they demand that our language usage and
cultural praxis be put aside in favour of English language acquisition and
usage.
If however we do need further corroboration of these linkages we need not
look far. In her statistical research on Indigenous Canada Mary Jane Norris
reported in her analysis that
...many youth associate Inuktitut with their identity, traditional knowledge, and
culture; for some, losing Inuktitut can affect their sense of belonging, leading to
feelings of marginalization and exclusion. While youth are making a concerted
effort to use Inuktitut in daily activities, they also identify a need for support
through family, community and education, with opportunities to learn, hear and
use it.531
Norris’s study’s of Indigenous languages make for compelling reading as
they reveal in detail the devastation and the pressures that exist in terms of
Canadian mother tongues, and the re-uptake of mother tongues as a second
language. We can certainly gather from her work a direct sense of how
important language and culture is to self-esteem and self-worth, and how
important a whole of community approach is to this.
In Australia, the work of Associate Professor Mike (Dr A.M.) Dockery is not
too dissimilar to that of Norris, in that Dockery’s focus was also upon
national survey data, however Dockery’s specific focus wasn’t language per
se, his was more ”...the relationship between culture and subjective
wellbeing for Indigenous Australians”.532 As I have done, Dockery
highlighted the valuable work of Hallet, Chandler and Lalonde in
substantiating causal links between cultural health and suicide, but
Dockery does also note that there has been little research done into “...the
links between culture and subjective wellbeing”.533 That duly noted Dockery
very confusingly pointed to both the association of happiness with strong
cultural identity, and strong cultural identity with psychological distress.534
This confusion though appears to signal some difference between those of us
living in ‘remote’ communities and those of us living in ‘non-remote’
communities. My impression is that we ‘non-remote’ peoples may well
experience more deeply the stress of having to walk in ‘two worlds’. There is
also a suggestion that discrimination is a variable here.
MJ Norris, Aboriginal Languages in Canada: Emerging Trends and Perspectives on Second
Language Acquisition, Canadian Social Trends, Cat. No:11/008, Statistics Canada, Ontario, Canada,
n.d., p.20.
532 AM Dockery, Traditional Culture and the Wellbeing of Indigenous Australians: An Analysis of the
2008 NATSISS, CLMR Discussion Paper Series 2011/01, Centre for Labour Market Research, Curtin
Business School, Curtin University, Perth, WA, 2011, p.4.
533 ibid., p.6
534 ibid., p.13.
531
[139]
Whatever the case maybe Dockery drew the conclusion that if the results he
obtained are “...to be accepted, then the policy implications that follow
would seem clear. The objective of policy should be to maximise
wellbeing”.535 To maximise wellbeing in our case is clearly to maximise our
maintenance of mother tongues and mother cultures or encouragement of
our re-acquisition and re-uptake of mother tongues and mother cultures. As
Dockery found “attachment to traditional culture and a strong sense of selfidentity not only increase the wellbeing of Indigenous Australians, they are
also associated with better ‘mainstream’ socio-economic outcomes”.536
Dockery tellingly asserted that this connection is yet to be fully understood
by non-Indigenous Australia. Accordingly, Dockery suggested that “in the
current pursuit of equity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous
Australians,
increasing
non-Indigenous
Australians’
knowledge,
understanding and respect of Indigenous cultures may well be the most
important gap to close”.537
In a recent analysis of racism in respect to Indigenous health, Professor Niyi
Awofeso noted that “racism has also created a situation in which there is a
diminishing self-esteem and self-confidence among Indigenous people in
their culture”.538 This observation aligns with those of Professor Meyer
which I discussed in Chapter 3. To me this was an interesting observation
because it harks to the matter of long-term intergenerational psychological
damage that earlier experience of colonisation can inflict upon a community.
It pays to keep in mind that for current generations of Indigenous
Australians, living without the most overt forms of racial discrimination
through government policy and practice is quite new. Grandparents, and
parents of my age, can speak to the experience of overt racism very well.
Current generations, however, are not necessarily free of racist experience.
A study conducted by Dr Naomi C Priest, Yin C Paradies, Wendy Gunthorpe,
Sheree J Cairney and Sue M Sayers into the experiences of Indigenous
youth in the Northern Territory suggest that racism is ongoing. These
authors found that “...among young Aboriginal people aged 16–20 years
living in the Top End of the Northern Territory, the experience of racism was
associated with anxiety, depression, suicide risk and overall poor mental
health”.539 Now whilst it is evident that this research pertains to a specific
living circumstance, usually termed ‘remote’, it is nonetheless telling of the
correlation between how society reacts to us and how we in turn react. I
535
536
537
538
539
ibid., p.19.
ibid.
ibid.
N Awofeso, op.cit., p.7
NC Priest, op.cit., p.548.
[140]
found Priest et al.’s claim that “late adolescence and early adulthood has
been identified as a time of heightened vulnerability to psychological distress
resulting from experiences of racism”540 compelling and very suggestive that
this is the time when a stronger sense of cultural self-esteem and self-worth
can come into its own as a preventative measure against these forms of
psychological distress.
The Australian Federal Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
certainly accepts that closing the gap between Indigenous and nonIndigenous Australia directly correlates with cultural health and
wellbeing.541 They openly assert that:
Initiatives that strengthen Indigenous culture are...important to the Closing the
Gap agenda, which is a commitment by all Australian governments to work
together to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples,
and in particular, to provide a better future for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children.542
Whilst the government accepts that there is a lack of empirical research to
support this, they do stress that community voice on this issue is loud,
clear, and valid.543 In their ‘Culture and Closing the Gap’ pamphlet they rely
upon sources such as Dockery to substantiate this as I have done. We know
that spiritual being and cultural being go hand in hand, and we know that
cultural being and health and wellbeing go hand in hand, in both an
individual context and a community context. The question for us isn’t - is
this interconnectivity true?, it is more - how do we repair the damage that
has been done to this interconnectivity?
5.2 Community and Education
The only sure-fire way of bringing an Indigenous community back to a state
of positive cultural health and wellbeing, when it has suffered language and
culture dispossession, is through whole of community education. Formal
schooling is but one aspect of this, certainly we cannot expect to build
culturally healthy communities on the back of school education alone. We
need to think about what is happening at the adult level as well. In Chapter
4 I discussed at length immersion as the most viable means for securing
revitalisation of our Indigenous languages and cultures because the
intensive processes that immersion involves are more likely to stimulate the
re-acquisition and re-uptake of mother tongue and mother culture. Even so,
we can immerse our children for as long as we like within mother language
ibid.
Culture and Closing the Gap, Australian Government, Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet, Office for the Arts, n.d., <http://www.arts.gov.au/sites/default/files/indigenous/closingthe-gap/ccg-factsheet.pdf>
542 ibid., p.1
543 ibid., p.2
540
541
[141]
and mother culture in a school setting and still come to find that the effect
of immersion learning is minimal in redressing language and culture shift.
The degree to which an immersion programme is successful isn’t merely
dependent upon the amount of time and space afforded within a formal
school structure; it is equally dependent upon what goes on around it.
Hinton has made it clear that:
...even the immersion classroom is not sufficient unto itself to turn around
language death: it is essential that the families play an active role as well...The
successful immersion programs also usually have a family component in which
parents are asked to learn the language in night classes, to volunteer in the
immersion classroom, and to reinforce at home the lessons the students learn at
school.544
There is a great deal to be said about the conduit between home, school and
community. As Bougie tellingly noted “the home environment naturally
impacts the transmission of an Aboriginal language from parent to child”.545
A child can learn an Indigenous language within school, but if the child
cannot communicate in that language with family, what is the point?
We know that everyday contact with language is pivotal to how well it is
sustained, and this is not realisable outside of a fluent community without
the benefit of education programmes that bring parental and community
learning into line with one another, so that children’s learning at school can
be supported within the home. Hinton explained that “one reason that Māori
and Hawaiian programs have worked so well is that their school programs
have developed out of grassroots community movements that include other
components of revitalisation”.546 Hinton further meaningfully explained that
whilst schools can have a major role in language revitalisation “bringing the
language back as the first language of the home is the true heart of
language revitalisation”.547 That is why the concept of language ‘nests’ that I
first mentioned in Chapter 4 is so important.
I noted in Chapter 4 that language nests are all about bringing the young
and the old together. The concept of language nests, as preschool initiatives,
is now widely accepted within the literature as best community practice.
There are certainly examples to be found within the literature that cite the
inspirational influence of Maori language nests and also Hawaiian language
nests. A prime example comes from Mexico, where the Spanish language
has come to dominate. Using the Maori model as inspiration a series of
language nests have been set up. What I found interesting about the
Mexican process was that they began by engaging communities “...in a
544
545
546
547
L Hinton, ‘Teaching methods’ op.cit., p.182.
E Bougie, op. cit., p.76.
L Hinton, ‘Teaching methods’, op.cit.
ibid.
[142]
process of reflection...about the loss of their languages and culture”.548 This
process of reflection is an all important first step because it brings a
community into direct contact with its own problems and it facilitates
community to go on to find its own solutions.
Another regularly cited example comes from the efforts of Greymorning who
worked to secure immersion schooling in Arapaho. He has written about the
inspiration he gained when he went to Hawaii and observed firsthand, and
filmed, the work of the Punana Leo language nests. He said, “As a result of
being able to show the tapes of the Hawaiian immersion preschools, the
elementary school principal allowed a half-day kindergarten Arapaho
language immersion class to be implemented...”.549 Greymorning discussed
at length the struggles that he faced in “running the gauntlet” to secure
immersion schooling for his people. What inspired me most about his
experience was not just what he did, it was how he felt spiritually; how he
came into the realm of the “spirit of the Dog Soldiers”, warrior spirits from
his own peoples, and how this underlined for him that the fight he was
engaged in to secure immersion programmes for his peoples children was a
spiritual fight.550
The example of Stephen Greymorning’s spiritual experience enmeshes well
with the example of the Mexican experience for two fundamental reasons.
Firstly, because we as community peoples must find within ourselves as
individuals the same spiritual urgency that Stephen found, so that we
spiritually resolve to maintain what our Spirit Elders passed down to us, or
to bring back into being that which we were given. Secondly, because the
process of individual spiritual realisation inevitably involves all of us coming
together to understand and grieve so that we might gain the spiritual energy
and wisdom to strengthen ourselves to work collectively to bring our
Indigenous ways of knowing, doing, being and speaking back into country.
Education, premised on our languages and cultures, in the community
context is quintessentially embedded as a spiritual journey, and community
education initiatives such as language nests must be spirituality motivated
to succeed.
The spiritual value of community driven education has gone seriously
under-discussed within the literature, but even so the value of community
centred initiatives such as language nests has at least been widely accepted
as sound practice. In the leading ‘National Indigenous Languages Survey
Report 2005’ the very first recommendation made for “a way forward” was
548
549
550
L Meyer & BM Alvarado, op.cit., p.111-112.
S Greymorning, op.cit., p.14.
ibid., pp.15-16.
[143]
that a pilot programme of language nests be established.551 This was
extrapolated to the second recommendation that centred on the formation of
“community language teams”. It was seen that these teams would have a
role to play in the instigation of preschool language nests and “other
language maintenance activities, including the preparation of learning
resources”.552 Recommendation three followed up by promoting the value of
establishing “regional Indigenous languages Centres”.553
Whilst these recommendations to my mind were framed within the context
of supporting language maintenance rather than the revival of language, the
concept of extrapolating preschool learning to a wider community initiative
is valuable, particularly in terms of regional language centres, because I can
see immediately a variety of roles for these types of organisation, including
cultural dispute mediation. That said, what I found absolutely missing in
the discussion surrounding the idea of establishing language nests,
language teams and language centres is the very real and urgent need for
expressly targeted adult and community education programmes in
Indigenous languages and cultures. Indeed in surveying the literature there
is a serious dearth of interest in this rather specific, yet extremely vital area
of language and culture survival and revival.
Another case in point is the Australian Human Rights Commission, who
discussed at length the merits of “community language resource centres”,
noting that they are the “engine room of many Indigenous languages
programs”.554 Overarching this is FATSIL, the Federation of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Languages, which the Commission confirmed has an
“advisory role” to government.555 The Commission also noted that “for the
most part Community Language Resource Centres carry out research work,
advocacy, language development programs, archiving of Indigenous
language materials and technical assistance to schools and other
organisations”.556 This is without doubt all extremely important in securing
the cultural health and wellbeing of Indigenous communities, but again I
was surprised that this report, like the NILS report, fell short of
meaningfully addressing the why’s and how’s of Indigenous adult and
community education in respect to the re-acquisition and re-uptake of
mother tongues and mother cultures.
551
552
553
554
555
556
National Indigenous Languages Survey Report 2005, op.cit., p.116.
ibid.
ibid.
Australian Human Rights Commission, op.cit., p.96.
ibid.
ibid., p.97.
[144]
For me, it is as though there is this feeling that adult community members
are already sufficiently equipped educationally to undertake the work of
language revival. Adult and community education when it is discussed in
reference to us invariably concentrates on the how’s and why’s of facilitating
our learning of Western literacy, numeracy and general socio-economically
founded life skills. There is little attention given to adult and community
education in respect to us Indigenous peoples learning our own languages
and cultures, and indeed the spiritual synergy of this. This is especially
surprising in the Australian context given Purdie’s observation that whilst
“80 different Indigenous languages are taught in schools...most of these
languages are not spoken by students at home”.557 Clearly there is a great
need for more concerted, concentrated effort with regard to changing this.
I found Hinton instructive on the matter of adult and community education,
especially in terms of informal education processes, which should not only
be in place, they should be recognised as highly valuable to the work of
realising Indigenous community health and wellbeing. Hinton noted that “in
the effort to maintain and teach a language which is no longer being learned
at home, speech communities have often started the process with informal
gatherings of speakers and nonspeakers”.558 Hinton suggested that “these
informal language classes are meaningful gatherings, and participants get
great pleasure out of them”.559 The idea of informal language and culture
workshops is very appealing. They certainly allow learning to take place in a
more relaxed less pressurised atmosphere where ‘shame’ is less likely to
take a grip hold on learning and stagnate the process, and they have the
potential to productively encourage self-realisation through the enactment of
self-determination, especially if teachers and learners are working together
with a spiritual sense of equality.
FATSILC, as it has now become known, provides useful guidance under the
banner of community development in terms of language and culture
learning. They suggest that:
Successful language projects are ones which focus on benefiting the language
communities, developing the capacity of communities and empowering
community members to develop language resources, to revitalise and maintain
their languages themselves.560
Language revival as community development, under FATSILC’s advice,
should involve “formal and informal training opportunities...for local
N Purdie, op.cit.
L Hinton, ‘Teaching methods’, op.cit., p.179.
559 ibid., pp.179-180.
560‘Community Development, Federal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Languages and Cultures
[FATSILC] Corporation, n.d., <http://www.fatsilc.org.au/languages/fatsilc-protocolsguide/community-development/870-community-development>
557
558
[145]
peoples”.561 Under the community development context learning becomes
action oriented. It very much puts me in mind of participatory action
research, a mode of research that I am particularly familiar with. In my
thesis I quoted Peter Park who affirmed that “participatory research aims to
empower people, not only in the sense of being psychologically capacitated
but also in the sense of being in-power to effect needed social change”.562
Indigenous language and culture revival in particular is all about social
change. McCarty quoted Warner as affirming that “...we are not fighting to
‘save’ a disembodied entity called language, but rather to ‘bring about
changes in society that [will] lead to true equality, authenticity in the
empowerment of a people...and social justice for all”.563 It is because the
fight to both maintain Indigenous languages and cultures and to revive
Indigenous languages and cultures is one that is wholly embedded within
social justice that enlightened community education praxis is urgently
required; an educative praxis that begins with awakening the mind and
spirit, that then moves forward to problem recognition and problem
investigation. From there it evolves out into the work of solution realisation
through action based learning. As a pedagogical praxis participatory action
research steps out into its own as it envelops all of these processes, so it is
in many ways a ‘best practice’ model for community based education.
Outside of the community context Indigenous language and culture learning
at the adult level tends to fall within the provenance of universities and
TAFE systems. Dr Mary-Anne Gale, in her study of Indigenous language
learning in both the university and TAFE setting began by noting in her
introduction that “...university language courses tend to offer the stronger
languages to non-Indigenous students, while TAFE courses tend to serve
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who are seeking vocational training in
their own languages”.564 In one sense this is understandable because TAFE
systems appear more amenable to working with the core needs and
aspirations of Indigenous communities, and learning can be more flexible. It
is clear from Gales study, however, that universities naturally veer toward
those languages which appear to be more developed and are therefore more
available to Western structured learning.
Without going into a protracted conversation about what each university is
doing or what each TAFE is doing, it is clear that these courses have a place
ibid.
P Park as cited in ST Williams, op.cit., p.105.
563 SL No-Eau Warner as cited in TL McCarty, ‘Schools as strategic tools...’, op.cit., p.175.
564MA Gale, Rekindling warm embers: Teaching Aboriginal languages in the tertiary sector, n.d.,
<http://www.nla.gov.au/openpublish/index.php/aral/article/viewFile/2278/2739>
561
562
[146]
in the overall expansion of Indigenous language and culture learning, in the
university context to non-Indigenous students in particular. These courses,
however, are quite vulnerable. Walsh for example drew attention to the
collapse of an adult education programme after one Indigenous learner
walked out over cultural dispute, causing other learners to follow.565 Along a
similar vein Gale discussed a Bundjalung language programme offered
through Monash University which eventually came to an end after staff
departures.566 The case of tertiary teaching the revived South Australian
language Kaurna is particularly interesting because it began at the
University of Adelaide under auspice of Amery, but when Amery left the
university Kaurna language teaching travelled with him to the University of
South Australia, only to return with him upon his return to the University of
Adelaide.
Clearly the problems experienced at the school level apply equally to the
tertiary and TAFE sectors in terms of teaching staff, stability of subjects and
courses, the veracity of language, the cultural and pedagogical polemics of
on country versus off country, resources, funding; the list can go on. What
has to be said about all of this though is that these modes of education, no
matter how good or otherwise they are, are only ever going to serve a select
number of Indigenous community people. Only those Indigenous peoples
seeking to undertake formal studies at the TAFE or tertiary level will
potentially access these courses, and that will depend upon how well they
handle the psychological dimensions of possibly having a non-Indigenous
person teaching Indigenous language and culture to them. This alone can
exacerbate problems centred around shame.
Community and education cannot be solely about the formal processes of
schooling, TAFE or tertiary sector learning; it has to be about the grassroots
level. No amount of education within school, within a TAFE or a university
will bring about the kind of social and cultural change that is needed within
our communities in terms of the survival and revival of our languages and
cultures. It takes a whole of community approach. It takes solid action on
the behalf of governments to accept and promote our efforts at the
grassroots level and it requires self-realisation and self-determination
through the empowerment of action based learning. In bringing this study to
a close I have within my mind the words of Fishman pressing once again
upon me -““What are you going to do with the mother tongue before school,
in school, out of school, and after school?” because that determines its fate,
whether it is going to become self-renewing” 567 because this question at the
565
566
567
M Walsh, ‘Raising Babel...’, op.cit., p.115.
MA Gale, op.cit., pp.283-284.
JA Fishman, op.cit., p.13.
[147]
end of the day is what it all comes down to – what do we want?, what are we
going to do to get what we want?, what is government going to do to support
us?
[148]
Cumulative References Bibliography
Aboriginal Affairs 2011, ‘Aboriginal Languages Project Brief’, New South Wales
Department of Education and Communities, Office of Communities, Aboriginal
Affairs, Sydney, NSW.
Agbo, SA 2004, ‘First Nations perspectives on transforming the status of culture
and language in schooling’, Journal of American Indian Education, vol.43, no.1,
pp.1-31.
Aklif, G (compiler) 1999, Ardiyooloon Bardi Ngaanka One Arm Point Bardi
Dictionary, Kimberley Language Resource Centre, Halls Creek, WA.
Amery, R 2002, Indigenous Language Programs in South Australian Schools: Issues,
Dilemmas and Solutions, project commissioned by the Board of Studies New South
Wales,
<http://ab-ed.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/go/resources/languages>
Apted, ME 2010, ‘Songs from the Inyjalarrku: The use of a non-translatable spirit
language in a song set from North-West Arnhem Land, Australia’, Australian
Journal of Linguistics, vol.30, no.1, pp.93-103.
Attwood, B & Markus, A 1999, The Struggle for Aboriginal Rights, Allen & Unwin,
NSW.
Announcement of U.S. Support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, 2010,
<http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/153223.pdf>
AUSTLANG Database
<http://austlang.aiatsis.gov.au/disclaimer.php>
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010, Population Characteristics, Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2006, Cat. No. 4713.0, Reissued 4 May, ABS,
Canberra.
Australian Human Rights Commission 2009, Social Justice Report 2009: Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Commissioner, Australian Human Rights Commission,
Sydney, NSW,
<http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/sj_report/sjreport09/chap3.html>
‘Australians should learn an Aboriginal language: expert’ 2011, Education Review,
27 January,
<http://www.educationreview.com.au/pages/section/article.php?s=Breaking+News&idArticle=19717>
Awofeso, N 2011, ‘Racism: A major impediment to optimal Indigenous health and
health care in Australia’, Australian Indigenous Health Bulletin, vol.11, no.3, pp. 113.
Begaye, T 2007, ‘Native teacher understanding of culture as a concept for curricula
inclusion’, Wicazo SA Review, vol. 22, no.1 pp. 35-52.
Bell, J 2003, ‘Australia’s Indigenous languages’ in M Grossman (coordinating ed),
Blacklines: Contemporary Critical Writing by Indigenous Australians, Melbourne
University Press, Carlton, VIC.
[149]
Bennett, T, Grossberg, L & Morris, M (eds) 2005, New Keywords: A Revised
Vocabulary of Culture and Society, Blackwell, Malden, MA, 2005.
Bishop, B, Colquhoun, S & Johnson, G 2006, ‘Psychological sense of community:
An Australian Aboriginal experience’, Journal of Community Psychology, vol.34,
no.1, pp.1-6.
Board of Studies New South Wales n.d., Aboriginal Languages: A Guide to the New
K-10 Syllabus, Board of Studies NSW, Sydney.
<http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_sc/pdf_doc/ab_language_k10_guide.pdf>
Board of Studies New South Wales 2000, Teaching Aboriginal Languages: Case
Studies, Board of Studies NSW, Sydney.
Board of Studies New South Wales 2003, Aboriginal Languages K-10 Syllabus,
Board of Studies NSW, Sydney.
Bougie, E 2010, Family, Community, and Aboriginal Language Among Young First
Nations Children Living Off Reserve in Canada, Canadian Social Trends no.90,
Statistics Canada, Ontario, Canada,
<http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2010002/article/11336-eng.pdf>
Bourke, E 1998, ‘Australia’s first peoples: Identity and population’ in C Bourke, E
Bourke & B Edwards (eds) Aboriginal Australia: An Introductory Reader in Aboriginal
Studies, 2nd edn, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, QLD, pp.38-55.
Calma, T 2008, ‘Sustaining Indigenous education, language and culture’, Public
Administration Today, no.17, Oct – Dec, pp.17–23, 32.
Carroll, DW 2004, Psychology of Language, 4th edn, Wadsworth/Thomson,
Belmont, CA.
Chandler, P, Haid, C, Jones, C, Lowe, K & Munro, J 2008, Aboriginal Languages
Research: Impact of Learning an Aboriginal Language on Primary School Students’
Literacy in English, report undertaken for the Board of Studies New South Wales,
<http://ab-ed.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/files/impact-learning-aboriginal-language-2008.pdf>
Chilisa, B 2012, Indigenous Research Methodologies, Sage, Los Angeles.
Christie, M, Guyula, Y, Gotha, K & Gurruwiwi, D, ‘The ethics of teaching from
country’, Australian Aboriginal Studies, no.2, pp. 69–80.
Coffey, W & Tsosie, R 2001 ‘Rethinking the tribal sovereignty doctrine: Cultural
sovereignty and the collective future of Indian nations’, Stanford Law and Policy
Review, vol.12, no.2, pp.191–221.
Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language, T. McArthur (ed), Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 1998. Oxford Reference Online, State Library of NSW,
<http://0www.oxfordreference.com.library.sl.nsw.gov.au/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t29.e1000>
Concise Oxford Dictionary, 2004, 11th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
[150]
Cookson, C 2004 ‘Linguists speak out for the dying tongues: LANGUAGE:
Scientists are engaged in a race against time to research and catalogue the world's
disappearing dialects’, Financial Times, 26 March,
<http://0-search.proquest.com.library.sl.nsw.gov.au/docview/249489165?accountid=13902>
Corson, D 1995, ‘Norway’s “Sami Language Act”: Emancipatory Implications for the
World’s Aboriginal Peoples”, Language in Society, vol.24, no.4, pp. 493-514.
Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation 1994, Walking Together: The First Steps:
Report of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation to Federal Parliament 1991–94,
Commonwealth of Australia, AGPS, Canberra, ACT.
Culture and Closing the Gap, n.d., Australian Government, Department of the Prime
Minister and Cabinet, Office of the Arts,
<http://www.arts.gov.au/sites/default/files/indigenous/closing-the-gap/ccg-factsheet.pdf>
Dale, D & Perkins, R (producers) 2008, First Australians: The Untold Story of
Australia, television programme, Blackfella Films for SBS Corporation, DVD
released and distributed by Madman Films.
De Korne, H 2010, ‘Indigenous language education policy: supporting communitycontrolled immersion in Canada and the US, Language Policy, vol. 9, pp.115–141.
Dickson, G 2010, ‘No Warlpiri, no school: A preliminary look at attendance in
Warlpiri schools since introducing the first four hours of English policy’, Ngoonjook:
A Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues, vol.35, pp.97-113.
Dockery, AM 2011, Traditional Culture and the Wellbeing of Indigenous Australians:
An Analysis of the 2008 NATSISS, CLMR Discussion Paper Series 2011/01, Centre
for Labour Market Research, Curtin University, Perth, WA.
Dominello, V 2011, ‘Minister announces investigation into Aboriginal cultural and
linguistic opportunities’, Media Release, Parliament House, NSW, 27 May.
Dunn, M, Greenhill, SJ, Levinson, SC & Gray, RD 2011, ‘Evolved structure of
language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals’, Nature, vol.473,
no.7345, pp.79-82.
Elkin, AP 1963, ‘Aboriginal languages and assimilation’, Oceania, vol.34, no.2,
pp.147–154.
Encyclopaedia of Aboriginal Australia 1994, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra,
ACT.
Fishman, JA 1996, ‘What do you lose when you lose your language’, paper adapted
from a speech given at the Stabilizing Indigenous Languages Symposium 16th
November 1994, ERIC–Education Resources Information Centre, EDRS document
no: ED395 732.
Folds, R 2001, Crossed Purposes: The Pintupi and Australia’s Indigenous Policy,
University of New South Wales Press, Sydney.
[151]
Franks, C & Curr, B 2007, Keeping Company: An Inter-cultural Conversation:
Irlkwatherre, Yatyarre, Tantye/Rtantye, Ngapartji-Ngapartji, Kepenhe, Janku-Janku,
2nd edn, J Foster (ed), Spencer Gulf Rural Health School, Whyalla, SA.
Frosch, D 2008, ‘Its native tongue facing extinction, Arapaho tribe teaches the
young’, New York Times, 17 October,
<http://nytimes.com/2008/10/17/us/17arapho.html?ref=indiansamerican>
MA Gale, Rekindling warm embers: Teaching Aboriginal languages in the tertiary
sector, n.d.,
<http://www.nla.gov.au/openpublish/index.php/aral/article/viewFile/2278/2739>
Gooda, M 2010, ‘Real people affected by racist taunts’, Aboriginal and Islander
Health Worker Journal, vol.34, no.4, p.19.
Grant, S Snr & Rudder, J 2005, A First Wiradjuri Dictionary: English to Wiradjuri
Wiradjuri to English and Categories of Things, Restoration House, O’Connor, ACT.
Greymorning, S 1999, ‘Running the gauntlet of an Indigenous language program’ in
J Reyhner, G Cantoni, RN St Clair & E Parsons Yazzie (eds), Revitalising Indigenous
Languages, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, pp.6–16,
<http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/RIL_2.html>
Hale, K 1992, ‘Language endangerment and the human value of linguistic diversity’
in K Hale, M Krauss, LJ Watahomigie, AY Yamamoto, C Craig, LM Jeanne & NC
England, ‘Endangered languages’ Language, vol.68, no.1, pp. 35–42.
Hallett, D, Chandler, MJ & Lalonde, CE 2007, ‘Aboriginal language knowledge and
youth suicide’, Cognitive Development, vol.22, pp.392–399.
Harrison, KD 2007, When Languages Die: The Extinction of the World’s languages
and the Erosion of Human Knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Helme, S & Lamb, S 2011, Closing the School Completion Gap for Indigenous
Students, Resource Sheet No.6, Closing the Gap Clearinghouse, Australian Institute
of Health and Welfare, Canberra & Australian Institute of Family Studies,
Melbourne.
Hinton, L 2001, ‘The Master-Apprentice language learning program’, in L Hinton &
K Hale (eds), Green Book of Language Revitalisation in Practice, Academic Press,
San Diego, CA, pp.217-226.
Hinton, L 2001, ‘Sleeping languages: Can they be awakened?’ in L Hinton & K Hale
(eds), Green Book of Language Revitalisation in Practice, Academic Press, San Diego,
CA, pp.413–417.
Hinton, L 2001, ‘Teaching Methods’ in L Hinton & K Hale (eds), Green Book of
Language Revitalisation in Practice, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp.179-189.
Hirvonen, V 2008, ‘Out on the fells, I feel like a Sámi: Is there linguistic and
cultural equality in the Sámi school’, in N Hornberger (ed), Can Schools Save
Indigenous Languages: Policy and Practice on Four Continents, Palgrave Macmillan,
Houndsmill, Basingstoke, UK, pp.15-41.
[152]
‘Historic move to recognise the Ainu’, Weekend Australian, 7 June 2008, available
from Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre, EBSCOhost.
Hobson, J 2010, ‘Questions of fluency in Australian languages revitalisation’ in J
Hobson, K Lowe, S Poetsch & M Walsh (eds), Re-Awakening Languages: Theory and
Practice in the Revitalisation of Australia’s Indigenous Languages, Sydney University
Press, Sydney, NSW, pp.267-280.
Hobson, J, Lowe, K, Poetsch, S & Walsh, M (eds) 2010, Re-Awakening Languages:
Theory and Practice in the Revitalisation of Australia’s Indigenous Languages,
Sydney University Press, Sydney, NSW.
House of Representatives, Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Affairs, Canberra, 1999. Testimony taken at Yirrkala, 6 May, 1999,
<http:www.aph.gov.au/Senate/Committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/2004-07/nt_emergency/report/report.pdf>
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Affairs 2011, Doing Time – Time for Doing: Indigenous Youth in the Criminal
Justice System, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Huss, L 2008, ‘Revitalisation through Indigenous Education: A Forlorn Hope?’ in
NH Hornberger (ed), Can Schools Save Indigenous Languages: Policy and Practice on
Four Continents, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndsmill, Basingstoke, UK, pp. 125–126.
‘Inquiry to focus on language’ 2011, Koori Mail, no.506, 27 July, p.14.
Jenks, C 2005, Culture, 2nd edn, Routledge, London.
Johnson, V, 2003, Clifford Possum Tjapaltjarri, Art Gallery of South Australia,
Adelaide.
Kanu, Y 2007, ‘Increasing school success among Aboriginal students: Responsive
curriculum or macrostructural variables affecting schooling?, Diaspora, Indigenous
and Minority Education, vol.1, no.1, pp.21-41.
Karst, A 2010, Conservation Value of the North American Boreal Forest from an
Ethnobotanical Perspective, David Suzuki Foundation and Boreal Songbird
Initiative, Ottawa, Canada.
Kay-Raining Bird, E 2011, ‘Health, education, language, dialect, and culture in
First Nations, Inuit, and Métis communities in Canada: An overview’, Canadian
Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, vol.35, no.2, pp.110–124.
Krauss, M 1992, ‘The world’s languages in crisis’, in K Hale, M Krauss, LJ
Watahomigie, AY Yamamoto, C Craig, LM Jeanne & NC England, ‘Endangered
languages’ Language, vol.68, no.1, pp. 1-10.
Larkins, S 1996, ‘Yipirinya School’, VOTL Magazine, vol.2,
<http://www.fatsilc.org.au/voice-of-the-land-magazine/vol-01-09-1996-1998/vol-02-july-1996/07-yipirinya-school>
Lee, TS 2007, ‘“If they want Navajo to be learned, then they should require it in all
schools”: Navajo teenagers experiences, choices and demands regarding Navajo
language’, Wicazo SA Review, vol.22, no.1, pp.7-33.
[153]
Lowe, K & Ash, A 2006, Talking Each Other’s Lingo: The Aboriginal K-10 Syllabus
and its Role in Language Revitalisation in New South Wales,
<http://ab-ed.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/files/talking_each_others_lingo.pdf>
McCarty, TL 2003, ‘Revitalising Indigenous languages in homogenising times’,
Comparative Education, vol.39, no.2, pp.147-163.
McCarty, TL 2008, ‘Schools as strategic tools for Indigenous language
revitalisation: Lessons from Native America’, in NH Hornberger (ed) Can Schools
Save Indigenous Languages: Policy and Practice on Four Continents, Palgrave
Macmillan, Houndsmill, Basingstoke, UK, pp. 161–179.
McConvell, P, Amery, R, Gale, MA, Nicholls, C, Nicholls, J, Rigney, LI & Ulalka Tur,
S 2002, “Keep that Language Going!”:A Needs-based Review of the Status of
Indigenous Languages in South Australia, A consultancy carried out by the
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies for the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, South Australia,
<http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/34168/1/hdl_34168.pdf>
Macklin, J 2009, ‘New national approach to preserve Indigenous languages’, Joint
Media Release with P Garrett, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT, 9 August,
<http://www.jennymacklin.fahcsia.gov.au/mediareleases/2009/Pages/preserve_indigenous_languages_10aug09.aspx>
McMurchy-Pilkington, C 2008, ‘Indigenous people: Emancipatory possibilities in
curriculum development’, Canadian Journal of Education, vol.31, no.3, pp.614-638.
Maori Language Commission,
<http://www.tetaurawhiri.govt.nz/english/>
Martin, R, McMurchy-Pilkington, C, Tamati, T, Martin, N & Dale, H 2003, ‘He
Rangahau ki tä Te Huarahi Mäori Rangahau Kaupapa Mäori: Reflections on
research methodologies for Mäori contexts’, NZARE/AARE Conference, 1 Dec,
<http://www.aare.edu.au/03pap/mcm03411.pdf>
Matthews, P 2007, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, 2nd edn, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
May, S & R Hill, R 2008, ‘Maori-medium education: Current issues and challenges,
in NH Hornberger, (ed), Can Schools Save Indigenous Languages: Policy and Practice
on Four Continents, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndsmill, Basingstoke, UK, pp.66–98.
Meyer,L & Alvarado, BM (eds) 2010, New World of Indigenous Resistance: Noam
Chomsky and Voices from North, South and Central America, City Light Books.
Ministry of Government Administration, Reform and Church Affairs n.d., Sámi
Policy, Oslo, Norway,
<http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fad/Selected-topics/Sami-policy.html?id=1403>
Muurrbay Aboriginal Language and Culture Cooperative.
<http://www.muurrbay.org.au/index.html>
National Indigenous Languages Survey Report 2005, 2005, Report submitted to the
Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts by the
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies in association
with the Federation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Languages, Department
[154]
of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Commonwealth of
Australia, Canberra.
‘Native American shows Indigenous Australians how to preserve language’
Guardian News, April 2007,
<http://www.muurrbay.org.au/pdf_files/media_releases/2007/prof_greymorning_guardian_5-4-2007.pdf>
National Native Title Tribunal, Native Title Mediation, 2009,
<http://www.nntt.gov.au/Publications-And-Research/Publications/Documents/Brochures/Native%20title%20mediation.pdf>
New Legend: A Story of Law and Culture and the Fight for Self-Determination in the
Kimberley, 2006, Kimberley Aboriginal and Culture Centre, Fitzroy Crossing, WA.
New South Wales Department of Aboriginal Affairs 2004, New South Wales
Aboriginal Languages Policy, NSW Dept of Aboriginal Affairs, Sydney.
New South Wales Department of Education and Training 2011, 2011 Aboriginal
Language Program Guidelines, NSW Dept of Education & Training, Sydney, NSW.
‘Ngarrindjeri Yanun: Speaking Ngarrindjeri’ 7 April 2010,
<http://www.indigenous.gov.au/stories/speakingngarrindjeri/>
Ngurrara: The Great Sandy Desert Canvas: A South Australian Museum travelling
exhibition, exhibition pamphlet, n.d.
Norris, MJ n.d., Aboriginal Languages in Canada: Emerging Trends and Perspectives
on Second Language Acquisition, Canadian Social Trends, Cat. No:11/008,
Statistics Canada, Ontario, Canada.
Norris, MJ 2011, ‘Aboriginal languages in Canada: A decade in review 1996 to
2006’, Aboriginal Policy Studies, vol.1, no.1, pp.4-67.
Northern Territory Government, Department of Housing, Local Government and
Regional Services 2011, Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council,
<http://www.dhlgrs.nt.gov.au/indigenous_development/indigenous_affairs_advisory_council>
Ogunwole, SU 2006, We the People: American Indians and Alaska Natives in the
United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-28, US Census Bureau.
Onai, T 2010, Living Conditions and Consciousness of Present-day Ainu: Report on
the2008 Hokkaido Ainu Living Conditions Survey, Center for Ainu & Indigenous
Studies, Hokkaido University, Japan.
Parliament of Australia, Parlinfo Search,
<http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/search.w3p>
Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives, Inquiry into Language Learning
in Indigenous Communities,
<http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/atsia/languages/index.htm>
Pearson, N 2011, ‘Speaking one’s mother tongue is vital’, The Australian, 21 May,
<http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/speaking-ones-mother-tongue-is-vital/story-e6frgd0x1226059932608>
[155]
Perkins, H (writer/presenter) 2010, Art + Soul: a Personal Journey into the World of
Aboriginal Art, Television Programme, Screen Australia, DVD distributed by
Madman.
Poroch, N, Arabena, K, Tongs, K, Larkin, S, Fisher, J & Henderson, G 2009,
Spirituality and Aboriginal Peoples Social and Emotional Wellbeing: A Review,
Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health, Discussion Paper Series: No.
11,CRCAH, Casuarina, NT.
Priest, NC, Paradies, YC, Gunthorpe, W, Cairney, SJ & Sayers, SM 2011, ‘Racism
as a determinant of social and emotional wellbeing for Aboriginal Australian youth’,
Medical Journal of Australia, vol.194, no.10, pp.546-550.
Purdie, N 2009, ‘A way forward for Indigenous languages’, Research Developments,
vol.21, no,21, art.2.
Purdie, N, Frigo, T, Ozolins, C, Noblett, G, Thieberger, N & Sharp, J 2008,
Indigenous Language Programmes in Australian Schools: A Way Forward,
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Canberra, ACT.
Purdie, N, Tripcony, P, Boulton-Lewis, G, Fanshawe, J & Guntstone, A 2000,
Positive Self-identity for Indigenous Students and its Relationship to School
Outcomes, Project funded by the Commonwealth Department of Education,
Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra, ACT.
‘Research project to preserve Indigenous languages in NT’, Charles Darwin
University, News Room Archives 2010,
<http://ext.cdu.edu.au/newsroom/a/2010/Pages/ResearchprojecttopreserveIndigenouslanguagesinNT.aspx>
Reyhner, J 2011, ‘Indigenous Language Immersion Schools for Strong Indigenous
Identities’
<http://www2.nau.edu/jar/Heritage.pdf>
Rhydwen, M, Parolin, E, Munro, J & Poetsch, S 2007, Report on School-based
Aboriginal Language Program Activity in NSW in 2006, New South Wales
Department of Education and Training, Board of Studies New South Wales,
<http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/primary/languages/aboriginal/assets/pdf/report_2006.pdf>
Ridgeway, A 2009, ‘Language is power; let us have ours’, Sydney Morning Herald,
26 November,
<http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/language-is-power-let-us-have-ours-20091125-jrsb.html>
Rigney, LI 2003, ‘Indigenous Education, Languages and Treaty: The Redefinition of
a New Relationship with Australia’, Treaty: Let’s Get it Right!: A Collection of Essays
from ATSIC’s Think Tank and Authors Commissioned by AIATSIS on Treaty Issues,
ATSIC/AIATSIS, Woden, ACT, 2003, pp.72 – 87.
Rubin, DS 1999, ‘Sm’algyax language renewal: Prospects and options’ in J
Reyhner, G Cantoni, RN St Clair & E Parsons Yazzie (eds), Revitalising Indigenous
Languages, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ,pp.17-32.
< http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/RIL_3.html>
Rumsey, A 1993, ‘Language and territoriality in Aboriginal Australia’, in M Walsh &
C Yallop (eds), Language and culture in Aboriginal Australia, Aboriginal Studies
Press, Canberra, ACT, pp. 191–206.
[156]
Scott, J & Marshall, G (eds) 2009, A Dictionary of Sociology, 3rd revised edn, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Simpson, J Caffery, J & McConvell, P 2009, Gaps in Indigenous Language Policy:
Dismantling Bilingual Education in the Northern Territory, AIATSIS Discussion Paper
no.24, AIATSIS, Canberra.
Smith, LT 1999, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, Zed
Books, London.
Smith, N 2005, ‘Chomsky’s science of language’ in J McGilvray (ed), Cambridge
Companion to Chomsky, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Cambridge
Collections Online, State Library of New South Wales,
DOI:10.1017/CCOL0521780136;002.
State Library NSW 2011, ‘NSW State Library launches landmark project to rescue
Indigenous languages’, Media Release, 12 August,
<http://blog.sl.nsw.gov.au/media/enclosures/Indigenous%20language%20lists_MR_120811.pdf>
Statistics Canada 2008, Aboriginal Peoples in Canada in 2006: Inuit, Metis and First
Nations, Census 2006, Catalogue No.97-558, Statistics Canada, Ontario, Canada.
Statistics New Zealand Tatauranga Aotearoa 2006, QuickStats about Maori, revised
27 March 2007,Statistics New Zealand.
Stubington J 2007, Singing the Land: The Power of Performance in Aboriginal Life,
Currency House, NSW.
Swann, J, Deumert, A, Lillis, T & Mesthrie, R 2004, A Dictionary of Sociolinguistics,
The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, USA.
Truscott, A & Malcolm, I 2010, ‘Closing the policy-practice gap: Making Indigenous
language policy more than empty rhetoric’ in J Hobson, K Lowe, S Poetsch & M
Walsh (eds), Re-awakening Languages: Theory and Practice in the Revitalisation of
Australia’s Indigenous Languages, Sydney University Press, Sydney, NSW, pp.6-21.
2001 Survey on the Health of the Maori Language, May 2002,
<http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/maori/2001-survey-on-the-health-of-the-maorilanguage.aspx>
United Nations 2007, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples, Adopted by the United Nations Generally Assembly as Resolution 61/295,
13 September,
<http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html>
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2004, The Concept of
Indigenous Peoples, workshop on data collection and disaggregation for Indigenous
peoples, New York, 19–21 January,
<http:www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/.../workshop_data_background.doc>
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2009, State of the
World’s Indigenous Peoples, United Nations, New York,
<http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/SOWIP_web.pdf>
[157]
United Nations Economic and Social Council 2008, Report of the International
Expert Group Meeting on Indigenous Languages, Permanent Forum on Indigenous
Issues, 7th session, E/c.19/2008/3
<http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/EGM_IL.html>
UNESCO Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger,
<http://www.unesco.org/culture/languages-atlas/>
UNESCO, Endangered languages,
<http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/cultural-diversity/languages-and-multilingualism/endangered-languages/>
United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues [UNPFII], News,
<http://www.un.org.socdev/unpfii/en/news.html>
Viatori, M & Usbigua, G 2007 ‘Speaking sovereignty: Indigenous languages and
self-determination’, Wicazo SA Review, vol.22, no.2, 2007, pp. 7-21.
Victorian Curriculum Assessment Authority,
<http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/alcv/language_reconstruction.htm>
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority [VCAA] 2009, Aboriginal
Languages, Culture and Reclamation in Victorian schools: Standards P-10 and
protocols, VCAA, East Melbourne.
Walsh, M 2002, Teaching NSW’s Indigenous Languages Lessons from Elsewhere,
project commissioned by the Board of Studies New South Wales,
<http://ab-ed.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/go/resources/languages>
Walsh, M 2006, Raising Babel: Language Revitalisation in New South Wales,
Australia, University of Sydney, NSW, pp. 113–117.
<http://azoulay.arts.usyd.edu.au/mpsong/MichaelWalsh_files/WalshRaisingBabel.pfd>
Walsh, M 2007, ‘Australian Aboriginal song language: so many questions, so little
to work with’, Australian Aboriginal Studies, no.2, pp.128–144.
Walsh, M 2010, ‘Why language revitalisation sometimes works’ in J Hobson, K
Lowe, S Poetsch & M Walsh (eds) 2010, Re-Awakening Languages: Theory and
Practice in the Revitalisation of Australia’s Indigenous Languages, Sydney University
Press, Sydney, NSW, pp.22-36.
Wardhaugh, R 1998, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 3rd edn, Blackwell, Oxford.
Warford, MK 2011, ‘Narrative language pedagogy and the stabilisation of
Indigenous languages’, The Reading Matrix, vol.11, no.2, pp.76-88.
Warner, SL No’Eau 2001, ‘The movement to revitalise Hawaiian language and
culture’ in L Hinton & K Hale (eds), Green Book of Revitalisation in Practice,
Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp.133-144.
Williams, R 1989, What I Came to Say, Hutchinson Radius, London.
Williams, R 1983, Keywords: a Vocabulary of Culture and Society, Flamingo,
Condor.
[158]
Williams, ST 2007, Indigenous Values Informing Curriculum and Pedagogical
Praxis, PhD thesis, Deakin University, Victoria,
<http://www.deakin.edu.au/dro/eserv/DU:30023289/williams-indigenousvalues-2007.pdf>
Wilson, S 1999, Recognising the Importance of Spirituality in Indigenous Learning,
Paper presented at the Creating New Learning Conference, Australian Corrections
Education Association Inc,
<http://www.acea.org.au/Content/1999%20papers/Shaun%20Wilson%20-%20paper.pdf>
Wurm, S 2007, ‘Australia and the Pacific’ in C Moseley (ed), Encyclopedia of the
World’s Endangered Languages, Routledge, London.
Yunupingu, Y 2010, ‘Bilingual works’, Australian Educator, no.66, pp. 24-25.
Zuckermann, G & Walsh, M 2011, ‘Stop, Revive, Survive: Lessons from the Hebrew
revival applicable to the reclamation, maintenance and empowerment of Aboriginal
languages and cultures’, Australian Journal of Linguistics, vol.31, no.1, pp.111-127.
[159]